UT Austin Medical School Plan Unveiled

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Big news from UT.


UT regents expected to OK $334.5 million plan for med school

$334.5 million project

4 building complex

515,000 square feet of space in 3 buildings: an academic building, medical office building, and research building.

480,000 square foot teaching hospital.

New $250 million teaching hospital would replace University Medical Center Brackenridge.

The medical office building could be a joint venture with a private developer.

At least two parking garages would have 1,000 spaces.

Opening fall 2016.

Red River would need to be realigned "straightened" north of 15th Street. UT would pay for it.

Plans call for keeping the Erwin Center for now, but it would be moved in 6 to 15 years as the medical school grows.

The draft plan calls for future growth of a 120 bed psychiatric hospital and a cancer center. There could also be another medical office building and more parking garages. There could also be more academic and research buildings.

Wow! UT is determined to build the campus downtown. Already the feedback in the Statesman online site is very negative. I suspect there will be a fair amount of protest regarding the changes proposed for the green spaces on campus that will be sacrificed for this HUGE project. I guess the UT campus is going to resemble the UCLA campus with a giant medical center as a very visible feature. This is great news for all the fans of downtown density, but I can't help think that an entirely new campus and hospital in the Highland Mall area would have been a much better long term plan. This is going to bring so much more traffic and congestion to an already hopelessly congested area. I guess we can kiss the Red River short cut (or I35 workaround) goodbye. There will now be absolutely no way to avoid the traffic crunch getting out of or through downtown.

[Syndic]

Let the NIMBYs moan. This is a great plan. It increases the need for public transportation options (I foresee lots of people in scrubs riding buses in the near future) and also helps increase demand for housing downtown. It will also add diversity to Austin, because it should result in a larger Asian population.

[austin242]

https://www.facebook.com/UTAustinTX

The new Hospital plan is on this page.

Looks like they are getting rid of the Penick tennis courts and centennial Park.

They are also splitting Red River in two. I don't like that at all. Unless when they redo Breckenridge hospital they will realign it. Which looks as if they might do that. Then they would also have more park space or room for yet another building

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Let the NIMBYs moan. This is a great plan. It increases the need for public transportation options (I foresee lots of people in scrubs riding buses in the near future) and also helps increase demand for housing downtown. It will also add diversity to Austin, because it should result in a larger Asian population.

Well I'm a downtown NIMBY and I say it's perfectly Horrible plan. It's not dense. It' not Urban. It doesn;t create a connection to the city or street scapes. It is a suburban campus plan in the worse sense. Why is this thinking still around? If you are going to kill green space ( that I think is a mistake) why pretend to have a park? Make it dense and make it a mixed use center. Make it an urban design instead of an "educational park". Find the space by the Erwin that can go vertical and do! Yes there is one CVC that cuts thru the parking lot to the south of the Erwin...so? Be Creative. This looks to be the reason to ask for red River realignment. UT could care less what this does to traffic in that area. They are blindly just doing what they want. Institutional Narcissim.

If UT is going to reach outside of the traditional campus....it needs to reach outside of campus thinking. Bring housing and businesses to this area as well. Integrate with the city instead of ignoring Austin.

I will be behind any council person who throws it down to stand up to UT on this one.

And I'll skip the Asian comment.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Well I'm a downtown NIMBY and I say it's perfectly Horrible plan. It's not dense. It' not Urban. It doesn;t create a connection to the city or street scapes. It is a suburban campus plan in the worse sense. Why is this thinking still around? If you are going to kill green space ( that I think is a mistake) why pretend to have a park? Make it dense and make it a mixed use center. Make it an urban design instead of an "educational park". Find the space by the Erwin that can go vertical and do! Yes there is one CVC that cuts thru the parking lot to the south of the Erwin...so? Be Creative. This looks to be the reason to ask for red River realignment. UT could care less what this does to traffic in that area. They are blindly just doing what they want. Institutional Narcissim.

If UT is going to reach outside of the traditional campus....it needs to reach outside of campus thinking. Bring housing and businesses to this area as well. Integrate with the city instead of ignoring Austin.

I will be behind any council person who throws it down to stand up to UT on this one.

And I'll skip the Asian comment.

Can you get real for a minute here? You have absolutely no idea whether this is going to "interact" with the environment at all! All we have is a conceptual plan, without any details whatsoever about anything you're bitching about.

And seriously, you think that the university should bring businesses to this area? The damned university is including medical office space! What do you think that is?

Housing will never work in projects like this, so you can drop that pretty much immediately, but guess what? There will instantly be demand in this quadrant of downtown for private developers to fill for housing for medical students, which actually works to the long-term benefit of downtown and the capitol complex.

You're being very short-sighted here and, frankly, your comments on this issue are more akin to an Austin American Statesmen comment thread than the typical SSP post.

On the Asian comment: this is actually probably true. Asian ethnic groups have been known to increase in and around areas that are medically focused.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.utsystem.edu/sites/utsfil...l/5-2013ab.pdf

Plans Unveiled for UT-Austin Dell Medical School

First Look at UT Medical School: New Hospital on Red River, Erwin Center Could Be Demolished

Dell Medical School Construction Plans Unveiled

-

Regents expected to OK $62 million facelift to DKR

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Well I'm a downtown NIMBY and I say it's perfectly Horrible plan. It's not dense. It' not Urban. It doesn;t create a connection to the city or street scapes. It is a suburban campus plan in the worse sense. Why is this thinking still around? If you are going to kill green space ( that I think is a mistake) why pretend to have a park? Make it dense and make it a mixed use center. Make it an urban design instead of an "educational park". Find the space by the Erwin that can go vertical and do! Yes there is one CVC that cuts thru the parking lot to the south of the Erwin...so? Be Creative. This looks to be the reason to ask for red River realignment. UT could care less what this does to traffic in that area. They are blindly just doing what they want. Institutional Narcissim.

If UT is going to reach outside of the traditional campus....it needs to reach outside of campus thinking. Bring housing and businesses to this area as well. Integrate with the city instead of ignoring Austin.

I will be behind any council person who throws it down to stand up to UT on this one.

And I'll skip the Asian comment.

I agree with much of what you said in the above comments, and I encourage you to continue to voice your opinions here. I also hope that UT officials have their feet held to the fire with this development. If it has be located in this quadrant of the city, it needs to be sensitive to the fabric of the city and not just become an extension of the present UT campus. I hate to see one of the prettiest streetscapes in Austin sacrificed for a low rise office park medical complex. I agree that this project should go vertical to the maximum extent allowed, and I think that the present hospital campus and the area to the immediate south of the present hospital should be used to house the entire hospital part of the complex. There are several vacant parcels in that direction, and some underutilized parcels on the two blocks fronting the Sheraton between the I35 service road and Red River. I would really like to see as much of the green space along the creek saved as might be possible. I hate to see Red River become a strictly local thoroughfare in the vicinity of the this new complex. Finally, I hope we can have a civilized discussion about this situation. I thought the previous poster's comments to you were unnecessarily hostile.

[Komeht]

Losing the Red River workaround scares the bejeezus out of me...it's one of the few things that makes north south travel out of downtown tolerable, otherwise no problem with the plan as proposed, which looks fairly dense and street oriented from what I can tell. I would, of course, prefer more verticality. But the locating the buildings in the street and use of structured parking is a vast improvement over what exists there today.

As for lack of verticality - again, another problem with the CVCs that I've pointed out in the past and been vehemently disagreed with. They are uncompromising and force sprawl. Shame.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I agree with much of what you said in the above comments, and I encourage you to continue to voice your opinions here. I also hope that UT officials have their feet held to the fire with this development. If it has be located in this quadrant of the city, it needs to be sensitive to the fabric of the city and not just become an extension of the present UT campus. I hate to see one of the prettiest streetscapes in Austin sacrificed for a low rise office park medical complex. I agree that this project should go vertical to the maximum extent allowed, and I think that the present hospital campus and the area to the immediate south of the present hospital should be used to house the entire hospital part of the complex. There are several vacant parcels in that direction, and some underutilized parcels on the two blocks fronting the Sheraton between the I35 service road and Red River. I would really like to see as much of the green space along the creek saved as might be possible. I hate to see Red River become a strictly local thoroughfare in the vicinity of the this new complex. Finally, I hope we can have a civilized discussion about this situation. I thought the previous poster's comments to you were unnecessarily hostile.

Thank you and I appreciate your post. I do know that I get my feathers up when it comes to UT. I have either been a student there, taught their or lived by UT my entire tenure in Austin. (It's a love/hate relationship!... full disclousure). It happens, I guess ,when you have long witnessed their insensitivity to anything not UT. They are famous for not responding to the community and physically ( by that I mean design) not connecting to the fabric of the city around them.

I do hope this is just a "first pass" and the city can have some success in the process. But note they are not only way down the proverbial road on this, but also they do not have to approah the leg on this one. That could mean even less public disclousure. I guess ultimately we'll wait and see ( well, I won't! LOL!. I've alread written a letter to UT... and am prompting Architecture professors to make noise... of course the last time that happened the Dean of the School of Architecture "Resigned"!)

Oh....and "office park medical complex" describes what is on paper at this time accurately.

Thanks for your discourse.

[MightyYoda]

Has anyone looked at the CVC in the area, they may already be planning to build as high as they are allowed.

[austlar1]

The renderings provided to the public are so generic and lacking in detail that it is not possible to determine the height of any of the proposed structures. If the drawings provided are any indication, the plan is for a series of mostly low rise or barely midrise buildings on most of the campus, and I doubt that any of them are anywhere near the CVC limits. BTW, does anybody know whether buildings built on campus even have to conform to CVC limits?

[_Matt]

Out of curiosity, I'd like to see some examples of verticality in hospital/medical in a dense urban setting. What does this look like? Any examples?

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

Has anyone looked at the CVC in the area, they may already be planning to build as high as they are allowed.

Yes... it is in the masterplan study. The only area that is only partially affected is on the south side of the Ervin. There is a very narrow view that cuts thru those lots at an angle. It would be challenging... but could also create an interesting building! (Easier if you move the practice facility.)We have other examples in the city where the angle in a building was created to accomodate the CVCs. ( the first link Kevin listed above takes you to the doc that has complete plans including the CVCs and how they relate in it! )

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by austlar1

does anybody know whether buildings built on campus even have to conform to CVC limits?

Yes, the UT Campus does have to adhere to the CVCs. Remember, one of the most valued CVCs is the one looking down the south mall of the campus towards the dome.

Originally Posted by _Matt

Out of curiosity, I'd like to see some examples of verticality in hospital/medical in a dense urban setting. What does this look like? Any examples?

There are plenty more, but the nearest big one to Austin is the Texas Medical Center in Houston. Supposedly it has more square feet than downtown Fort Worth. The three tallest are over 400 feet tall. The tallest one, with the spires, is 477 feet. So it's about the same height as the W is.

http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_104_9574.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_032_9556.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_068_9529.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_081_9482.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_093_9505.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_100_9728.jpg
http://www.skylinescenes.com/largeIm...e_123_2978.jpg

More here:
http://www.skylinescenes.com/houston...xas_a64p1.html

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Yes... it is in the masterplan study. The only area that is only partially affected is on the south side of the Ervin. There is a very narrow view that cuts thru those lots at an angle. It would be challenging... but could also create an interesting building! (Easier if you move the practice facility.)We have other examples in the city where the angle in a building was created to accomodate the CVCs. ( the first link Kevin listed above takes you to the doc that has complete plans including the CVCs and how they relate in it! )

Where are you getting your information?

I'm looking at the UTSystem plan - it shows Five Capital View Corridors impacting the cite including 13, 30, 23, 24, 25 - that takes out almost everything north and west of the Erwin Center and much of the area south of the Erwin Center. As a matter of fact, about the only large chunk of land NOT impacted by the CVCs is the Erwin Center itself.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Well I'm a downtown NIMBY and I say it's perfectly Horrible plan. It's not dense. It' not Urban. It doesn;t create a connection to the city or street scapes. It is a suburban campus plan in the worse sense. Why is this thinking still around? If you are going to kill green space ( that I think is a mistake) why pretend to have a park? Make it dense and make it a mixed use center. Make it an urban design instead of an "educational park". Find the space by the Erwin that can go vertical and do! Yes there is one CVC that cuts thru the parking lot to the south of the Erwin...so? Be Creative. This looks to be the reason to ask for red River realignment. UT could care less what this does to traffic in that area. They are blindly just doing what they want. Institutional Narcissim.\

We must be looking at two completely different plans. The plan I'm looking at is street centered, uses structured parking instead of the acres of existing surface parking, is designed to be connected to the city and looks fairly dense to me - much much denser than the existing use and resembles a suburban campus (in the worse sense) plan in no way. They are proposing 4.5 Million SF - how much denser would you like them to go?

There are 5 CVCs that cut through the entire west and north side of the land - as a matter of fact, the ONLY area not impacted by the CVCs is the Erwin Center itself.

As for realignment of Red River - It would be a bad idea to make a jog there - that is one of the few streets that makes travel North to South in Central Austin tolerable.

[KevinFromTexas]

The regents approved it.

UT med school moves forward with regents' vote

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Komeht

We must be looking at two completely different plans. The plan I'm looking at is street centered, uses structured parking instead of the acres of existing surface parking, is designed to be connected to the city and looks fairly dense to me - much much denser than the existing use and resembles a suburban campus (in the worse sense) plan in no way. They are proposing 4.5 Million SF - how much denser would you like them to go?

There are 5 CVCs that cut through the entire west and north side of the land - as a matter of fact, the ONLY area not impacted by the CVCs is the Erwin Center itself.

As for realignment of Red River - It would be a bad idea to make a jog there - that is one of the few streets that makes travel North to South in Central Austin tolerable.

Yeah, I saw the same maps with multiple CVC corridors. My question is exactly how high can they build within some of those corridors. The area to the south of the hospital is criss-crossed with CVCs. Right now there are mostly one or two story buildings or empty lots to the south of the hospital. I always assumed that taller buildings (maybe not really tall, but 8 to 10 stories?) could be built there. This may not be the case since these parcels sit up on a hillside overlooking the capitol complex. What the UT plan most resembles to me is the new campus for the UCLA Medical Center which is being built out adjacent to the existing medical center campus in Westwood/LA. I guess this is the style in medical complexes nowadays. I would love to see the existing hospital tract and the area to the south bulked up with a mega hospital. I'd like to see the medical school replace one or more of the massive state parking structures to the West of Waterloo Park. I'd like to see the green space at the edge of campus and adjacent to Waterloo Park remain more or less intact. I guess, in the end, UT doesn't give a hoot what I would like to see. Their current plan utilizes land they already control. They don't have to buy land, and they don't have to incur massive legal fees to obtain the right to acquire other nearby properties.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Yeah, I saw the same maps with multiple CVC corridors. My question is exactly how high can they build within some of those corridors. The area to the south of the hospital is criss-crossed with CVCs. Right now there are mostly one or two story buildings or empty lots to the south of the hospital. I always assumed that taller buildings (maybe not really tall, but 8 to 10 stories?) could be built there. This may not be the case since these parcels sit up on a hillside overlooking the capitol complex. What the UT plan most resembles to me is the new campus for the UCLA Medical Center which is being built out adjacent to the existing medical center campus in Westwood/LA. I guess this is the style in medical complexes nowadays. I would love to see the existing hospital tract and the area to the south bulked up with a mega hospital. I'd like to see the medical school replace one or more of the massive state parking structures to the West of Waterloo Park. I'd like to see the green space at the edge of campus and adjacent to Waterloo Park remain more or less intact. I guess, in the end, UT doesn't give a hoot what I would like to see. Their current plan utilizes land they already control. They don't have to buy land, and they don't have to incur massive legal fees to obtain the right to acquire other nearby properties.

It's hard to tell exactly how how from the materials available online.

For example - CVC 13 is described as "Upper deck of IH-35 Southbound from East Dean Keeton St. to East MLK Jr. Blvd. The Viewpoint to the North begins a a distance of 7045 feet from the Capitol with an elevation of 648 feet. To the South, the viewpoint ends at a distance of 4,627 feet from the Capitol at an elevation of 618 feet."

CVC 23: "The Mueller Airport view corridor originates at the old flight control tower, northeast of the capital. The viewpoint is relatively low at 603 feet in elevation and relatively far from the dome, approximately 14,208 feet. This is one of the more distant view points east of IH-35."

CVC 24: The MLK view points are at 570 feet in elevation and 3,500 feet northeast of the Capitol. The dome is also clearly visible from the parking lot of the baseball stadium on the east side of IH-35.

CVC 25: The Oakwood view point height is at 662 feet and approximately 5000 feet east and north of the capital. The view is on axis with the main road through the cemetery.

CVC 30: Entrance Terrace of the University of Texas Swim Center.

Basically - the CVCs take out most of the height - I would think under these the maximum height a building could go to would be about 150' and probably a lot less than that - maybe 60-90.

Keep in mind, 1/3 of the area is also in Waller Creek Flood zone (no tunnel up there).

WRT to the greenspace - those are little used "parks" - I use that term very loosely. And Austin is about to embark on a project to transform Waller Creek into a "String of Parks" from Town Lake to 15th Street. I think it's OK to let UT go on this one. But don't mess with my Red River!

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Where are you getting your information?

I'm looking at the UTSystem plan - it shows Five Capital View Corridors impacting the cite including 13, 30, 23, 24, 25 - that takes out almost everything north and west of the Erwin Center and much of the area south of the Erwin Center. As a matter of fact, about the only large chunk of land NOT impacted by the CVCs is the Erwin Center itself.

I see what you heard... Maybe gramatically poorly put. I was pointing out that there was only one area that was only partially affected! Sorry about that.