AUSTIN | Modern Austin Residences | 658' | 56 FLOORS | U/C - Page 6

The ATX · #**101** Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 2:51 AM**

From the backup file...

clubtokyo · #**102** Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 2:56 AM**

Nice! I like it.

The ATX · #**103** Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 2:59 AM**

I hope the 52nd floor skydeck is open to the public. But I suspect its for the Apt. residents and not part of the hotel.

KevinFromTexas · #**104** Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 6:50 AM**

Here is the rendering with The Travis towers included. I wouldn't read too much into the scale of these because I think they're off by a good bit. Skyhouse looks too tall compared to 70 Rainey, and 70 Rainey looks too tall compared to 90 Rainey. And the Homewood Suites Hotel looks way too tall compared to Skyhouse.

We vs us · #**105** Posted **Dec 15, 2019, 6:14 PM**

Towers mentions that the hotel component will have 424 keys -- which is a pretty large hotel. For comparison's sake, the Omni Downtown has 392 keys; The Line has 428. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of the podium floors (such as they are) have dedicated ballroom space, as well. I ALSO bet that whomever ends up being the hotel operator will also get dibs on operating Container Bar and/or Bungalow.

https://austin.towers.net/heres-90-9...wing-district/

Sigaven · #**106** Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Are they no longer going to actually use the bungalow in which Bungalow is currently bungalowed?

It looks like they aren't even using all the containers for Container Bar - just a couple of containers to stick out the front to keep the same theme, but it'll probably just be a regular-construction bar inside. Bungalow appears to ditch the bungalow altogether and just keep the name.

The ATX · #**107** Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 7:25 PM**

This one may run into some resistance from the DC. Here's a new backup file with comments from a DC working group:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=332927

Quote:

While the project appears to be meeting the minimum gatekeeper requirements, the Working Group has concerns over
the large amount of FAR being requested. Since this project is seeking a FAR that is more than double the maximum
allowed under the Downtown Density Bonus Program, the Working Group believes the applicant should provide more
Community Benefits than the affordable housing and fees being proposed, including mobility and streetscape
improvements as example. The Working Group questions how responsible it is to add this much FAR to an area like
Rainey that already suffers from mobility issues. Even with reduced parking, the large FAR being requested for this
622-unit building will result in thousands of building users, and these users will rely on some type of transportation to
get there and that will only add to the Rainey mobility nightmare. While it is not our intent to punish the applicant for the
City’s planning failures, requesting such a drastic increase in FAR, under the current Rainey climate seems hasty. The
Working Group requests that the full Design Commission recommend additional Community Benefits for this project
that will alleviate the impact this large project will have on an area that is already struggling.

Vexal · #**108** Posted **Dec 17, 2019, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

This one may run into some resistance from the DC. Here's a new backup file with comments from a DC working group:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=332927

When I hear "community benefits", I think of things like a laser tag arena, a park with a real merry-go-round and not the safe soccer mom stuff we get these days, etc. Not boring things like affordable housing or a bus stop.

chinchaaa · #**109** Posted **Dec 17, 2019, 2:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexal

When I hear "community benefits", I think of things like a laser tag arena, a park with a real merry-go-round and not the safe soccer mom stuff we get these days, etc. Not boring things like affordable housing or a bus stop.

Is this sarcasm?

Geckos_Rule · #**110** Posted **Dec 17, 2019, 3:54 PM**

I, for one, would welcome a laser tag place in the base of this building....

But in all seriousness, if they talk about community benefits, I assume they mean "give the city money to pay for things around the area," Because otherwise, I can't think of a better community benefit than just building this, and having the maximum possible amount of ground-floor space available for businesses, which it seems to already have (e.g., container bar and bungalow being built in). What I'd fear is this would end up like the Ashton, which has it's gym on the ground floor and absolutely no commercial space, or like Millenium, which has 5x the footprint, and only one restaurant (and a bar that's about 100 sq ft.).

Sigaven · #**111** Posted **Dec 17, 2019, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

I, for one, would welcome a laser tag place in the base of this building....

But in all seriousness, if they talk about community benefits, I assume they mean "give the city money to pay for things around the area," Because otherwise, I can't think of a better community benefit than just building this, and having the maximum possible amount of ground-floor space available for businesses, which it seems to already have (e.g., container bar and bungalow being built in). What I'd fear is this would end up like the Ashton, which has it's gym on the ground floor and absolutely no commercial space, or like Millenium, which has 5x the footprint, and only one restaurant (and a bar that's about 100 sq ft.).

TIL there's a bar and restaurant in the Millennium now.

(i haven't been to Rainey in ages ok...last I went those retail spaces sat empty)

The ATX · #**112** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 12:23 AM**

The Design Commission approved this project. BUT it will now have to get approval from the Planning Commission followed by the City Council because of the FAR they are seeking.

The ATX · #**113** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 9:56 PM**

For those not keeping up with all the details...I think this one is worth noting: This project will only have 140 parking spaces, and they will all be below grade. I believe that is the reason Kevin Burns wanted to start this after the Block 190 WeWork tower started. He's planning to market this towards workers in the area who may not want a car.

clubtokyo · #**114** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 10:27 PM**

Not having a parking podium is a win, build it now

The ATX · #**115** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 11:36 PM**

The is going to the HLC before the PC. I guess it's because a bungalow will be disrupted. On 02/10 it's on the agenda for the Certificate of Appropriateness Review Committee, and on 02/24 it's on the HLC meeting agenda. There is a back up file for the Certificate of Appropriateness Review Committee review.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=335391

The ATX · #**116** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 1:12 AM**

I see the plans for the bungalow now are to demolish it. So that's the reason for the HLC meeting.

Jdawgboy · #**117** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 1:16 AM**

Wait isn't this the one where they were going to incorporate the house and Container bar into the project. Why change that? I actually think they should make them incorporate it instead of tearing it down.

The ATX · #**118** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Wait isn't this the one where they were going to incorporate the house and Container bar into the project. Why change that? I actually think they should make them incorporate it instead of tearing it down.

Apparently the Container Bar is still included. But the City (HLC staff?) wasn't on board with the bungalow idea, so plans to include it were scrapped. I believe blame lies with the City on this.

Jdawgboy · #**119** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Apparently the Container Bar is still included. But the City (HLC staff?) wasn't on board with the bungalow idea, so plans to include it were scrapped. I believe blame lies with the City on this.

Wow really?! Any reason why they didn't like the idea? I would think that preserving the house would actually be right up their alley and if the developer is willing then I'd say that's a win win. The city only wants to save old small houses if they are planned to be demolished from the get go but they don't like it when developers take the initiative... Go figure

Sigaven · #**120** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Wait isn't this the one where they were going to incorporate the house and Container bar into the project. Why change that? I actually think they should make them incorporate it instead of tearing it down.

It looks to me from the renderings and plans like just a couple of "containers" will be used at the entrance of the new Container Bar, but the rest of it will be conventional construction inside the building. And as for Bungalow, it looks like they are getting rid of the bungalow altogether, and just keeping the name inside the new bar space on the second floor.