AUSTIN | The Grove Mixed Use | U/C

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...3844119.735690

Austin developer plans $500 million project on Bull Creek land
Updated: 7:18 p.m. Thursday, April 2, 2015 | Posted: 7:01 p.m. Thursday, April 2, 2015

By Gary Dinges and Shonda Novak - American-Statesman Staff

Newly unveiled plans for 75 prime acres along Bull Creek in Central Austin call for a $500 million project that includes single-family homes, apartments, shops, restaurants, office space and a 12-acre park.

The proposed development — to be called The Grove at Shoal Creek — at Bull Creek Road and West 45th Street is being planned by Austin-based MileStone Community Builders. The project could cost about $500 million and take five to seven years to complete, said Garrett Martin, president and CEO of MileStone, Austin’s largest locally owned homebuilder.

Newly unveiled plans for 75 prime acres along Bull Creek in Central Austin call for a $500 million project that includes single-family homes, apartments, shops, restaurants, office space and a 12-acre park.

The proposed development — to be called The Grove at Shoal Creek — at Bull Creek Road and West 45th Street is being planned by Austin-based MileStone Community Builders. The project could cost about $500 million and take five to seven years to complete, said Garrett Martin, president and CEO of MileStone, Austin’s largest locally owned homebuilder.

[Digatisdi]

Hmmm... I'm not sure what to think, I would've preferred more mixed-use, or at least elimination of what appears to be surface parking in the northwest corner, that chunk for more mixed-use or retail, but other than that I feel like this will overall be a good addition

[airwx]

I wish there were a way to add a bike/pedestrian bridge across Shoal Creek and connect to Shoal Creek Blvd, but overall it looks better than I was expecting.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I'd rather any surface parking be below grade. I'm also wondering how long it'll be before Austin sees any considerably tall buildings outside of downtown that aren't anything more than suburban office parks.

[lzppjb]

I saw this earlier tonight. A co-worker lives in Allandale. He said his wife is going to flip out over it. haha

[austlar1]

I have a friend who works for this developer. He said that due to neighborhood opposition it was not possible to plan for anything terribly dense or vertical on this amazing parcel of land. I guess he knew what he was talking about here. I hate the fact that the street layout does not really connect with any of the surrounding area. It could almost be a gated community. Note how the proposed park is tucked way in the back no doubt to discourage use by people who don't live in the development.

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by airwx

I wish there were a way to add a bike/pedestrian bridge across Shoal Creek and connect to Shoal Creek Blvd, but overall it looks better than I was expecting.

I agree on both points. I'm sure we'd have to fight the State for that one, if the Archives Commission building still retains rights to the land on the opposite shore. Eventually I'd like to see something done where the Archives Commission building is torn down and redeveloped into mixed-use housing with a road or pedestrian path closer to the creek because it'd definitely make ped/bike bridges easier to put in.

[verybadgnome]

This is starting to look like a wasted opportunity. The market demand in Austin is for multi-family by a 3 to 1 ratio versus single family but this plan seems to be ignoring that. There are too many unsubstantiated claims by those who oppose this. They ignore the simple fact that not building density in the core will actually push people farther out and make the overall situation worse.

[ivanwolf]

This parcel should be only residential. Not every new development has to have retail. Having the mix of Apt, Townhouse, and SFR is ok. If I lived near it I'd fight to keep the retail and parking garages away. Just some nice homes with lots of trees, minimize the surface parking.

[_Matt]

What a shameful, pathetic use of central Austin land. No density. No context of the surrounding city, as Kevin said. Nothing to make the city greater for it.

Instead we get a master planned community devoid of interconnection. This is a suburb development (MileStone is a suburban developer, see map below). The city planners really need to get their act together as more central parcels like this become available.



I suppose one good thing is that density is low so that the exclusion of public transportation connectivity won't impact the connecting streets as it could with dense, vertical development. Maybe they will have roaming golf carts to give the occupants located on the far end a ride to the community amenities.

Is it just me, or do "master planned communities" and "responsible urban development" seem to be in conflict.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

This parcel should be only residential. Not every new development has to have retail. Having the mix of Apt, Townhouse, and SFR is ok. If I lived near it I'd fight to keep the retail and parking garages away. Just some nice homes with lots of trees, minimize the surface parking.

What is your justification for saying it only should be residential? If the local market via a strong customer base supports retail why should it be precluded?

Exclusionary zoning, with the exception for industrial land uses, creates more problems than it solves.

A side benefit to this project will be that it makes Mueller look like redevelopment utopia.

[KevinFromTexas]

This project had me thinking of an article someone posted in the City Discussions section of the forum a few days ago. You can read it here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=216440

I can't remember where I read it, but I read something else that was talking about developers in New York requesting they be allowed to remove parking requirements for their projects, and residents there were complaining and opposing that idea. Who needs a car in New York? They said the problem then was developers had to build parking garages into their projects, which added to the cost of the housing prices for the project. Digging is always timely and costly. Also, if they have height restrictions to contend with it means any added height to the building in the form of an above ground parking garage means less building for residential units, which also drives up the cost of the units since there's less of them in the building to spread the cost around. The third problem to this is that adding all those parking spaces in the garage for all those cars means more traffic, and in a place like New York that can be pure hell because of the density.

Granted, Austin is no New York, but then again Austin's bigger now than New York was in 1850 by nearly 200,000 people. Why wait?

[mars-man]

Originally Posted by _Matt

I suppose one good thing is that density is low so that the exclusion of public transportation connectivity won't impact the connecting streets as it could with dense, vertical development.

This project as presented has its pros and cons, and I enjoy a good kvetch as much as anyone, but let's keep to the facts. Capital Metro's Bull Creek bus (No. 19) goes right alongside this tract on its way to/from downtown and Anderson/Northcross, with many transfer points along the route. Transit connectivity is not an issue.

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I read something else that was talking about developers in New York requesting they be allowed to remove parking requirements for their projects,

This?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=311

[KevinFromTexas]

Yes! Cool, thanks for posting that here.

[lzppjb]

I think we need single family homes in the core, as well as multifamily and townhomes. If you want to attract the people who choose to live in the burbs, you need to offer what they want, which is a detached house with a bit of yard.

I think we are a big enough city, physically, to offer everything.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I think we need single family homes in the core

Depending on what you mean by the core, most of Austin is single family homes. Downtown is flanked on all sides by such neighborhoods, and it's putting a severe constraint on urban growth because nobody wants their neighborhood re-zoned for greater density.We don't need another acre within the city of Austin to be developed with detached SFDs, we need to push for much greater density lest the next 3 million residents end up commuting 40 miles to and from work.

[lzppjb]

It's an interesting battle. I just don't know many families that want to live in an apartment where rent is higher than a mortgage.

[Tech House]

I'm a single man who enjoys renting a room in a SFD, so I'm part of the problem. Being able to park by the door to carry stuff in and out, not hear neighbors through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and walk out the back door to a private yard with a lawn, what's not to like? It just isn't feasible to jam 5 million people into a city and have a lot of this type of space near the center of the city, although Austin looks poised to do just that. It will be interesting.

[KevinFromTexas]

One problem I see to dense development in the heart of Austin is the dense tree canopy we have. And of course I'd be against cutting down/moving these trees for development. I'm not talking about young trees the squirrels planted along fences and power lines, I'm talking about 200 to 500 year old Oaks with huge canopies that would make it nearly impossible to build around. Those trees are also just simply too massive to try to move. A few years ago when my grandmother was in declining health and my aunt was living with her and looking after things, she actually suggested my brother and I along with our cousins dig up and move the Oak tree in the backyard near the house because she was worried it was damaging the patio. I kind of gave her a look like "you're nuts" - because this tree is about 400 years old. I'm sure it's heritage tree size. It's too big for me to wrap my arms around and has a 60 foot canopy. I'm pretty sure it weighs as much as the house does. That lot only has three Oak trees on it and two much smaller Elm tree "clusters" - but they create a canopy so thick you can't see the a square inch of the roof of the house in Google Earth. Our yard is similar with 5 Oaks, one of which we had listed as a heritage tree, because my idiot uncle kept cutting the limb back that was over the storage shed in the backyard. He did that 10 years ago, and that limb hasn't really grown much since then. Oak trees take an incredibly long time to grow. I'm sure all of the trees on our lot are at least 200 to 300 years old.