AUSTIN | Avenir (Formerly Dorsey) | 170 Feet | 15 Floors | Complete

[The ATX]

So, we'll now get a bulkier building that could still be 150' tall? All this because of 35'.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I think my comment was missunderstood. It was a joke, I was just jokingly implying that almost anything would be better than what Brandywine is proposing at 4th and Colorado.

Unfortunately the way it seems to be going with the council, this looks like it's going to be scaled down. At what point is a project not even viable after it is forced to shrink in height? Imo it only makes it harder for the developer to include affordable housing.

The developer should have planned for not getting everything it wanted from the council as that does not happen, they just won't get as much profit as they hoped for. Plan for as is, hope for the sky.

This happens in my office they want to much not reading the rules and then complain it hurts their project, but had they just done their research they would have known better. Sometimes they are rejected sometimes they get what they want.

[lzppjb]

A 150' highrise behind your house is going to block just as much of your view as a 185' highrise (i.e. all of it).

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

A 150' highrise behind your house is going to block just as much of your view as a 185' highrise (i.e. all of it).

Yeah, and if it's wider then it's blocking more view than if it were taller and narrower. I just don't get it. I'm almost anti-growth in some ways, but I don't understand the objection to height that gets people so worked up. Is it because it makes the city look like a city?

As for the immediate neighbors, it sucks to have anything other than a well-tended park or museum in that spot, but compared to what'a currently on that land, anything shy of a landfill seems like a win for everyone.

[lzppjb]

One of the complaints is that it would shade the houses.

Um, if it were me, I'd be all for that. Throw some extra insulation in the attic + more shade from highrise = lower electric bills.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The mayor speaks about this project in a KXAN interview.

http://kxan.com/2016/04/14/one-two-e...enior-housing/

From the story accompanying the video:


The City Council has a 6:30 PM time set for discussion on this tonight. I suspect there will be another delay/postponement.

In the morning the shadows would be cast westward - away from the neighborhood. In the afternoon they would be cast toward it, but the towers in downtown will block some of that low angle sunlight that causes them. And nevermind the fact that whatever can be built a block west of I-35 could potentially be 2 to 3 times as tall as what they're planning here, and there can be no neighborhood complaints then since it would technically be outside of their neighborhood boundary, and because there would likely be no need for height variances or zoning changes.

[drummer]

I feel bad for developers sometimes. Other times I don't. But this is one of the times that I do. Their hands are tied from having anything profitable. I bet they're just going to build a three-story building with a bingo hall on the first floor.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

I feel bad for developers sometimes. Other times I don't. But this is one of the times that I do. Their hands are tied from having anything profitable. I bet they're just going to build a three-story building with a bingo hall on the first floor.

It could end up being a shitty run of the mill 5-story apartment building with no affordable/senior housing. But yay! The neighborhood somehow wins.

[austlar1]

I don't usually get worked up about these things, but I am really disgusted with the opposition to this project. Everything about that site suggests that the best possible use would be to build dense and build tall. Austin is not serious about becoming a real city. Projects like the one proposed here are the kind of things that get built in authentic urban environments. We will probably end up with another shitty five story stick build perched on top of a huge concrete garage. How sad and lacking in imagination is that?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Austin is not serious about becoming a real city. Projects like the one proposed here are the kind of things that get built in authentic urban environments.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think that this doesn't give due credit to those who are trying to make good changes. That said, I completely understand your frustration - and I share it.

[427MM]

It would seem that the lack of grocery stores in this area would make anything other than a yes vote irresponsible.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by 427MM

It would seem that the lack of grocery stores in this area would make anything other than a yes vote irresponsible.

Right? The problem is that the residents are likely to vote against Houston no matter her position on this particular development, precisely because the residents are going to have fundamentally different financial priorities than preexisting residents. They're also likely to be people who turn out disproportionately in local elections, making the sheer size of the development absolutely untenable for Houston to support.

Furthermore, because of the precedent that it creates in the area (yes, I realize that RBJ is a similar development, but there are fundamentally different issues at stake with this development because of what, exactly, it is replacing), similar city council districts' representatives (Renteria, Cesar) are likely to oppose the development as well because of the same political pressures.

Garza is also a likely opponent simply for the gentrification affect on minority residents. Both Latino and African American elected officials are known to scholars to behave as representatives (across representational definitions, including in voting behavior, oversight activities, constituent relations and service, and in symbolic behavior) for coethnic citizens, regardless of whether those citizens are their own constituents or not.

At that point, once you've thrown in the anti-development (Pool, Kitchen) and right wing nuts, that's 7 of 11 tentative votes against this project. Ergo, I do not even expect to see this go forward in its current iteration.

In order for any development that doesn't already fit into current zoning to go forward in this city, it requires the votes of the minority coalition - Renteria, Houston, Cesar, and Garza - plus the votes of the generally pro-density block. What does that generally mean? It means that significant increases in density on the east side of 35 are unlikely moving forward.

[drummer]

I get it and I hate that politics comes into it so much. I think density in this area is coming, but I think it will be undeniably difficult. I hope this project does go forward.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Both Latino and African American elected officials are known to scholars to behave as representatives (across representational definitions, including in voting behavior, oversight activities, constituent relations and service, and in symbolic behavior) for coethnic citizens, regardless of whether those citizens are their own constituents or not.

It's not like the only thing we know about our representatives is their ethnic identity. There are many statistics that can be used in order to try to predict behavior, but knowledge of the individual's actual behavior leaves stats in the dust. Maybe you're thinking abstractly about this situation because you're far away and don't feel much connection to the councilmembers? A construct like "coethnic citizens" isn't meant to be applied as a means to predict the voting behavior of elected representatives according to their presumed ethnic identity. It's research jargon that describes patterns as seen through the eyes of researchers, with limited applicability in the real world.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

At that point, once you've thrown in the anti-development (Pool, Kitchen) and right wing nuts, that's 7 of 11 tentative votes against this project. Ergo, I do not even expect to see this go forward in its current iteration.

They're well-balanced with all the left wing nuts.

[drummer]

For the sake of including everyone, let's just call them "nuts."

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

It's not like the only thing we know about our representatives is their ethnic identity. There are many statistics that can be used in order to try to predict behavior, but knowledge of the individual's actual behavior leaves stats in the dust. Maybe you're thinking abstractly about this situation because you're far away and don't feel much connection to the councilmembers? A construct like "coethnic citizens" isn't meant to be applied as a means to predict the voting behavior of elected representatives according to their presumed ethnic identity. It's research jargon that describes patterns as seen through the eyes of researchers, with limited applicability in the real world.

Except we're seeing it applied in the real world with the way that both the minority councilmembers that have spoken against the project have framed that opposition (Houston and Renteria). And yes, there are many predictors of elected official predictor. I'm simply, as an academic researcher who does research in this area, providing one of the many contextual factors that I think is clear is influencing these electeds in this battle.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

They're well-balanced with all the left wing nuts.

Austin does not have any elected actual left wing nuts on city council. Try somewhere else for that. The left here is very corporatist in general, with both the NIMBY and pro-dense development crowd with both having strong corporatist components to their ideology just in different ways.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Austin does not have any elected actual left wing nuts on city council. Try somewhere else for that. The left here is very corporatist in general, with both the NIMBY and pro-dense development crowd with both having strong corporatist components to their ideology just in different ways.

You got me thinking about whether we've even had any recent left-nut candidates, let alone any that have won election. I've always been impressed by the well-tempered liberalism of Austin. Coming from the Bay area, it was a refreshing change to meet so many progressives who have conservative friends, and moderates whose views are totally unpredictable. In Berkeley I always felt like it was impossible to be leftist enough to please anybody. I had a bumper sticker in the 80s that said God Is Coming and Is She Pisssed, and a woman bitched me out for being offensive to feminist spirituality. Also in the 80s, the Berkeley city council was divided between leftists and marxists. No joke. If you were a progressive Democrat you were suspect. Truly oppressive and toxic political atmosphere, I'm so glad to be gone.

[lzppjb]

Edit: Not worth it.