AUSTIN | The Bowie | 423 FT | 37 FLOORS | Complete

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/business/de...d-1556414.html

Developers seeking zoning change for potential downtown mixed-use tower

By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Updated: 11:35 p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Published: 9:34 p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Developers are seeking a zoning change for a potential office project or an apartment tower that could rise up to 400 feet near the southeast corner of West Fifth and Bowie streets in downtown Austin.

It also is near the 42-story Spring condominiums and 29-story Monarch apartment highrise.

The Austin City Council is scheduled to vote today on the zoning request by developer Perry Lorenz, with Bowie Street Partners Ltd., which owns the property. Lorenz also is one of the developers of the Spring project at Third and Bowie.

The project would include an easement across the site that would allow the city Parks and Recreation Department to close a gap in the hike-and-bike trail along Shoal Creek south of Fifth Street.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...ise_in_wo.html

New residential highrise in works for downtown

By Shonda Novak | Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 03:54 PM

UPDATE: Jamil Alam, a principal with Endeavor Real Estate Group, confirmed the Austin-based firm intends to buy the land, and while the company hasn’t determined exactly what it may build there, preliminary plans are for either an office tower, or an apartment high-rise with some office space.

The site, near the southeast corner of Fifth and Bowie, encompasses three small buildings at 309, 311 and 315 Bowie, including an equipment rental business and Francois Photography.

There was no word on when any project might start.

[KevinFromTexas]

Council approved it yesterday. Of course Morrison voted no.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...ng_change.html

Council approves zoning change for proposed downtown highrise

By American-Statesman staff | Friday, June 24, 2011, 07:26 AM

The Austin City Council, meeting late Thursday night, approved a zoning change that will allow Endeavor Real Estate Group to build a highrise tower on West Bowie between Third and Fifth Streets, on downtown’s eastern edge.

The council voted 6-1, with Laura Morrison voting no, to approve the zoning. The new zoning allows Endeavor to build as high as 400 feet in an area where standard zoning caps heights at 120 feet.

The only speaker in opposition was Heather Way, an affordable housing advocate, who said the city should have considered the project under a density-bonus ordinance that would have required Endeavor to contribute to an affordable housing fund in exchange for the new zoning.

[Spaceman]

Did morrison gave any reason for her vote??

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Did morrison gave any reason for her vote??

maybe you'll find the answer to your question over here:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cityclerk...110623-reg.htm

[Spaceman]

Maybe not!!!

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Spaceman

Did morrison gave any reason for her vote??

She said the city was putting the cart before the horse.

So pretty much that it was a development and would increase the property taxes from $100k to $1.5 mil was reason enough. If it were a vote to turn that little equipment shop into a historic site and allow it to not pay taxes then I'm sure she would have been thrilled to vote for it.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't think the average person has any idea how much money these skyscraper properties generate for the local tax base and what benefit they offer to the community. People were raising the issue with F1 of not using that money to pay for it since we don't have enough for school spending. The funny thing is most of these projects end up generating money that pays for schools. Oh, if only humans relied on logic instead of emotions like the Vulcans do.

[KevinFromTexas]

If you look on Google Maps the tree is right smack dab in the middle of the site.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...e-1671894.html

For a greener Austin, 57-foot pecan tree faces the chop
Developer says tree must go for high-rise.

By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 7:28 p.m. Friday, July 29, 2011

In a case that tests Austin's commitment to its environmental goal of a dense urban core, a city board is faced with giving its blessing to the cutting down of a 57-foot-tall pecan tree on prime downtown real estate to make way for the construction of a 400-foot office or residential tower .

The proposed building, near the southeast corner of West Fifth and Bowie streets, is the sort of project that environmentalists typically favor as they try to foster a sustainable downtown: a tall building within walking distance of businesses and apartments. Officials with Cerco Development , which wants to build the project, say the building will meet green building standards.

But standing in the way is the pecan tree, which has a 32-inch-diameter trunk too thick for an adult to circle with both arms. A city arborist rated the tree's condition as "good" — not as good as very good or excellent, but better than fair, poor, critical or dead.

[BevoLJ]

I love Pecan trees. They are some of my favorites. I have some here at my house and planted quite a few out at my farm. But none of them are even close to 32 inches. That is a real shame.

Why can't they move it? It says because of utilities. I have to find that kind of hard to believe. There must be some way to move the tree. Have the developers pay to have the lines lowered for a week while they move the tree.

[KevinFromTexas]

Shouldn't the lines around the property be buried anyway after the building is finished? I'm not real familiar with that lot, but I do know the tree sits smack dab in the middle of it. So there's at least no way they could build around it. I highly doubt it anyway.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/business/do...y-1874060.html

By Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Updated: 10:47 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011
Published: 7:47 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011

In addition, Endeavor Real Estate Group said Thursday that it plans to build 350 apartments in a previously announced tower planned for West Fifth and Bowie streets. Jamil Alam, a principal with Austin-based Endeavor, said the building will have about 34 stories and will include 45,000 square feet of office space.

Alam declined to release additional details about Endeavor's project.

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.statesman.com/business/do...y-1874060.html

Link is to the Whitely article. EDIT: never mind.. didn't notice that they were all the same article! doh

[Jdawgboy]

in a 3 to 4 vote the planning commission has struck down the 5th and Bowie Tower.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

in a 3 to 4 vote the planning commission has struck down the 5th and Bowie Tower.

Fuckers. Those fuckers.

[The ATX]

Usually planning comission decisions are no more than recommendations to the city council. But the heritage tree ordinance seems to require the planning comission support before a project can move forward.

Saving that single tree in lieu of downtown densification sure seems anti-environmental. Maybe the developer can offer to plant a bunch of trees on Austin parkland or elsewhere in the city and appeal the decision. That certaintly seems like a win for everyone.

[wwmiv]

It doesn't mention a timeframe at all for this building.

[MichaelB]

Re: our one little tree. I will admit I am torn on this.
We will grow up and out and have to manage both. I dare say those folks that may build in the burbs might be more temped to opt for the vertical gated community if there was an actual tree left on the block. (...thought this development does back up to the greenbelt) Saving one tree seems like a small thing. But it is more about establishing a policy that will ensure that there is green downtown as well. Perhaps it will force developers to include green space with their highrise. That is a great idea. If you live downtown you know the most appealing downtown blocks have pockets of green.( I am very happy that our building actually has a few trees around it.) I Haven't seen the design, but I would bet it would actually make for a better "human" design and still have a developer profit just fine. OR...maybe they will indeed bargain big to swap out tree/green planting on the property to balance the loss.
In either case, I think the issue is more complex that it first appears.

[Jdawgboy]

This is my take on it. The ordinance should be changed but what I would like to see is any developer that plans to build and that has to chop down a tree or multiple trees, they need to replace them with new trees. But I would like to see it go further. For every ten feet in height a tree is that is cut down they would have to plant another tree. For example the article mentions this was a 50 foot tree. If it was cut down for a project then the developer would have to plant 5 pecan trees in its place. If they cannot plant all of them on their property then some sort of city policy should be in place that they can plant the trees in a public park or space. This should also count for those developers who want to build a large sprawled out shopping center with massive parking lots. However many trees they cut down, they are obligated to replace and however high the trees are in 10 foot intervals then they increase the replacement trees. In this way, you could discourage low level sprawled growth in favor of density as to lessen the cost to plant tons of trees.

This is clearly a ploy by the planning commission to find any way to stop this project from going forward even though the developer followed city ordinances and had a height cap of 400 feet and it was not in a Capital View Corridor, but because of one tree, they shot it down. By the way there are two other pecans on that sam lot roughly the same height that would not have needed to be cut down.

As far as heritage trees, they should use age as the defining decision over the girth of the trunk. Depending on the species of tree you can have large sized trunks for fairly young trees like Cottonwoods. The pecan in question is not even 100 years old. But again the Planning commission can easily look the other way when dozens if not hundreds of trees are wiped out for low level sprawl but make a huge fuss over one tree.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm sorry, but unless they plan on turning that block into a park, I don't see how the tree can benefit the public. It's in a dark cramped alley on a private piece of property.