AUSTIN | Austin Oaks PUD

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

PolitiFact Texas
Austin yard signs suggest office tower project could drive up traffic 500 percent
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...r-project-cou/

How much of that increased traffic is, you know, on the giant highway running alongside? You know, Mopac. I'm assuming "the area" includes the road directly adjacent to it.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

How much of that increased traffic is, you know, on the giant highway running alongside? You know, Mopac. I'm assuming "the area" includes the road directly adjacent to it.

Yeah, I'd love to see the data that produced their "figure" for that sign.

[The ATX]

The latest plan has the three tallest buildings capped at 7-stories and placed along MOPAC.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/de...sign-unveiled/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The latest plan has the three tallest buildings capped at 7-stories and placed along MOPAC.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/de...sign-unveiled/

Personally, outside of downtown, adjacent to downtown districts, and ancillary districts that have the ability to, as they densify, be catalysts for dense, urban, high rise development in a cohesive manner, I prefer density to be primarily in the 3-8 story range. I tend to view scattershot high rises along highway corridors to be unsightly urban blight that generally does not age well. If you aren't willing to go all in on density in a large scale way, human scale density is much more appropriate.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

and ancillary districts that have the ability to, as they densify, be catalysts for dense, urban, high rise development in a cohesive manner,

The problem is that Austin Oaks really is this. It's adjacent to and could be considered a part of the Northcross urban center, with its potential rail access and redevelopment potential.

[_Matt]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The problem is that Austin Oaks really is this. It's adjacent to and could be considered a part of the Northcross urban center, with its potential rail access and redevelopment potential.

I completely agree, but try convincing the adjacent neighborhoods of this.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The problem is that Austin Oaks really is this. It's adjacent to and could be considered a part of the Northcross urban center, with its potential rail access and redevelopment potential.

No, it isn't. This is a small site with only a few potential buildings. The type of area that I'm talking about are things that are much larger like Mueller, the Domain, Highland, Southshore, E. Riverside, and the Brackenridge Tract (and, of course, downtown generally). Each of those are easily the size of 30+ downtown blocks and are primed to be huge catalysts of urban development now, into, or over the next decade.

Small development opportunities like this, 2222/MoPac, Shoal Creek/45th, are not appropriate places for significant towers above around 8 to 10 stories (design and topography taken into consideration allowing for variation). Nor would it be a "positive" thing to see denser development spring up and hop across a highway just because something completely unrelated and impossible to connect in a walkable and actually pedestrian way precisely because of that highway to the other potential dense development across that highway. Building random towers in the middle of nowhere without a cohesive plan for that development that guarantees future towers of similar scale in a dense node does nothing but create a disgusting unsightly atmosphere. I'm sorry, but I for one am 100% glad that Austin is not Houston and I'd like to keep it that way. I want nice big tall towers where they are appropriate for the scale of the surrounding area.

I mean... come on! Building taller than 10 stories here is not gonna make it more likely that anything taller or more urban is built across the highway, and is it really gonna look at that nice if you're driving down MoPac and suddenly there are 2 or 3 really tall completely divorced from the scale of their surroundings and wait omg look across the street and suddenly you see 2 or 3 more towers across the highway a few miles away around Northcross that are totally divorced from the scale of their immediate context. ... and then you keep driving and maybe a few miles down the road you see another 2 or 3 towers that are totally divorced from reality. It's nasty, unsightly urban sprawl and I am 100% opposed to it. Keep it to VMU pedestrian friendly areas that provide benefits to the direct community, are relatable in scale, and that does not set a horrible re-zoning precedent ... unless you are willing to go all in on a larg(er) area in a masterplanned manner.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

and suddenly you see 2 or 3 more towers across the highway a few miles away around Northcross that are totally divorced from the scale of their immediate context.

The Northcross center isn't "a few miles away".

This area of Austin Oaks (the section along Mopac) is within a 1/4 mile radius of the UP Line and Anderson Lane. The entirety of Austin Oaks is within a 1/2 mile radius of the same.

I agree that it's not the nicest walk, but it's short.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

... and then you keep driving and maybe a few miles down the road you see another 2 or 3 towers that are totally divorced from reality.

"a few miles down the road" (actually a mile and a half) is the entire North Burnet/Gateway center. You already have height and density there, with hopefully a lot more coming.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The Northcross center isn't "a few miles away".

This area of Austin Oaks (the section along Mopac) is within a 1/4 mile radius of the UP Line and Anderson Lane. The entirety of Austin Oaks is within a 1/2 mile radius of the same.

I agree that it's not the nicest walk, but it's short.



"a few miles down the road" (actually a mile and a half) is the entire North Burnet/Gateway center. You already have height and density there, with hopefully a lot more coming.

That's too far for me to be comfortable with, and it isn't masterplanned as a district for cohesive design in any case.

[_Matt]

I don't really follow all of the comments about how things appear visually. That can be handled in other ways. The purpose of driving density in this PUD is to align work clusters with transportation nodes to better enable transport, be it auto, bus, or rail.

Also, the walk across MoPac can be improved relatively cheaply. Don't let the forest (land use) be lost for the trees (aesthetics). I think sometimes these small aesthetic details derail the conversation when the solutions are already present in more pedestrian oriented cities.

PS Houston hasn't historically integrated mid-rises well with surrounding environment. There's maybe a sidewalk connecting two fenced parking lots. Nobody is talking about that here.

[wwmiv]

I simply disagree. I think those types of buildings, regardless of the level of integration, are out of scale and out of place.

And don't misunderstand my argument: it has nothing to do with design it has to do with scale. I am opposed to highrises in non-strictly-urban districts because they are not on the same scale as the surrounding area. If you're willing to upgrade a huge swath of land to a strictly urban district, then high rises are fine. But if you're leaving suburbia intact in the surrounding area, a high rise is FULLY inappropriate because it looks out of scale. The design of the tower could be beautiful, and there are plenty of suburban towers in Houston that I think are beautiful. I still wish they had not been built.

In other words, I am in favor of gradually increasing scale across space from suburban to super dense urban nodes. I don't want any sudden shifts in the perceived scale, and building lone or two or three high rises in the middle of suburbia (without a master plan to build more in the future in the immediate vicinity) is misguided and visually chaotic and would remove part of Austin's unique sense of place. We really are one of the only large cities in America that, for the most part, lacks 15+ story suburban office towers scattered along highway corridors and I'd like to keep it that way.

[_Matt]

I see what you mean a bit more about scale and gradual increases. I haven't really considered what it would do to the sense of space.

When I drive down MoPac from far north, there are many commercial midrises (guessing 5-8 floors) along MoPac north and south of the Domain and it definitely makes the area feel more like a business district. It's interesting that it actually gets less dense after 183 until you get to South Austin. It certainly seems like the inner neighborhoods have a privileged position.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by _Matt

I see what you mean a bit more about scale and gradual increases. I haven't really considered what it would do to the sense of space.

When I drive down MoPac from far north, there are many commercial midrises (guessing 5-8 floors) along MoPac north and south of the Domain and it definitely makes the area feel more like a business district. It's interesting that it actually gets less dense after 183 until you get to South Austin. It certainly seems like the inner neighborhoods have a privileged position.

I'm fine with 5-8 stories, maybe even 10. I think 5-8 story buildings are great and I wish we had way more of them. But once you get higher floor counts, it just is so much more disconnected. Now, if you had, ya know, eight to ten 5-8 story buildings clustered around two or three 15+ story buildings, and then transitioning outward to 2-3 level buildings and then suburbia after that, I would be 100% okay with that. Unfortunately, that's impossible in the parcel of land we're discussing.

A equivalent location where I actually do think would be worth a huge fight to densify with maybe one or two 10+ story buildings surrounded by a bunch of 5-8 story buildings to fill up all those empty parking lots at the southeast corner of 2222/MoPac, but... you're right: inner neighborhoods are privileged to a degree in Austin. However, that's the case in a lot of places and simply has to do with the attendant underlying political geography: rich people tend to live in inner ring old build suburbs and rich people tend to hold a lot of political power.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I'm fine with 5-8 stories, maybe even 10. I think 5-8 story buildings are great and I wish we had way more of them. But once you get higher floor counts, it just is so much more disconnected. Now, if you had, ya know, eight to ten 5-8 story buildings clustered around two or three 15+ story buildings, and then transitioning outward to 2-3 level buildings and then suburbia after that, I would be 100% okay with that. Unfortunately, that's impossible in the parcel of land we're discussing.

A equivalent location where I actually do think would be worth a huge fight to densify with maybe one or two 10+ story buildings surrounded by a bunch of 5-8 story buildings to fill up all those empty parking lots at the southeast corner of 2222/MoPac, but... you're right: inner neighborhoods are privileged to a degree in Austin. However, that's the case in a lot of places and simply has to do with the attendant underlying political geography: rich people tend to live in inner ring old build suburbs and rich people tend to hold a lot of political power.

You mean north of the cemetery and south of 2222? Yeah, I can see that.

Though the neighborhoods would probably fight it on issues of transportation. The Mopac/2222 intersection there is already a bit funky, and between shoal creek and the cemetery you'd end up with all the trips entering/exiting onto northland.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You mean north of the cemetery and south of 2222? Yeah, I can see that.

Though the neighborhoods would probably fight it on issues of transportation. The Mopac/2222 intersection there is already a bit funky, and between shoal creek and the cemetery you'd end up with all the trips entering/exiting onto northland.

I agree. It'd require some transportation reconfiguration to work.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Time Warner Cable News
Austin Oaks Park plans endorsed by City Council
http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/new...ity-staff.html

Here's the new plan from that article. The tallest buildings, at 7 stories, would be along Mopac.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Time Warner Cable News
Austin Oaks Park plans endorsed by City Council
http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/new...ity-staff.html

Here's the new plan from that article. The tallest buildings, at 7 stories, would be along Mopac.

They seem to have changed/updated the title. Now it's "endorsed by city staff"

I prefer greater density, but at least it's not totally dead.

[Novacek]

New updates (it's not dead yet)

https://communityimpact.com/austin/n...mission-nov-1/

http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boa...tings/54_1.htm

[The ATX]

It has been determined that a council super majority is currently not needed to approve this project. But that could could change by the time the vote takes place later tonight...

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...s-invalidated/

[The ATX]

It passed.