AUSTIN | Seven | 263 FT | 24 FLOORS | Complete

[JAM]

I used to walk that way to catch the Dillo over to UT quite a bit last summer. I don't recall that area being heavily residential. It seemed mostly law firms and beauty shops and a few other misc. biz's. I'm a bit surprised by the fight because of this reason. What is their primary objective? Do they feel it will set a presidence and skyscraper creep will work its way over to the residential areas?

[AustinBob]

Originally Posted by JAM

I used to walk that way to catch the Dillo over to UT quite a bit last summer. I don't recall that area being heavily residential. It seemed mostly law firms and beauty shops and a few other misc. biz's. I'm a bit surprised by the fight because of this reason. What is their primary objective? Do they feel it will set a presidence and skyscraper creep will work its way over to the residential areas?

You're right. As I recall, most of the houses over there are converted to office and other non-residential uses. I really don't understand why this would not be approved by the PC. Should make for some intersting conversations between the Council and PC if they keep disagreeing on these projects.

[M1EK]

The forces behind the opposition to this project aren't residents; they're office-dwellers at Milkshake and the owners/operators of the Austin Womens' Club (where I had a wedding reception, ironically).

[AustinBob]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The forces behind the opposition to this project aren't residents; they're office-dwellers at Milkshake and the owners/operators of the Austin Womens' Club (where I had a wedding reception, ironically).

Exactly, which is what makes me wonder what their basis for their opposition to this building is. I may not always agree, but can at least understand a NIMBY attitude when it's truly in their backyard, but what's up with a NIMBY attitude when it's next door to their workplace? And what about the PC? You just know there is going to be much gnashing of teeth over the PC and Council not seeing eye-to-eye on these big projects.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by AustinBob

Exactly, which is what makes me wonder what their basis for their opposition to this building is. I may not always agree, but can at least understand a NIMBY attitude when it's truly in their backyard, but what's up with a NIMBY attitude when it's next door to their workplace? And what about the PC? You just know there is going to be much gnashing of teeth over the PC and Council not seeing eye-to-eye on these big projects.

I actually have more respect for both (especially Milkshake) because they DON'T stand to benefit financially from obstructing the project. It's just entirely possible that what they're saying really IS true - that they think the point tower will overwhelm the historic neighborhood between 7th and 8th. (I don't think so, but this is at least a defensible position, unlike so many we see).

[KevinFromTexas]

I would doubt any highrises would creep into those residential neighborhoods. As some of you mentioned some of those old houses have been turned into small offices. Most of the homes there are large, grand, old houses. Some being historic landmarks designated by the State and City. I doubt they'd ever let that happen. Given that fact, I say build densely on the periphery of the area. And as someone else also mentioned Boston has done a great job of balancing highrises next to historic neighborhoods, most notably in the Back Bay/Beacon Hill area.

Something else is that neighborhood has wall to wall trees. A lush, old and vibrant canopy of Live Oaks, Elms, Sycamores, and other tall established trees. There's such a dense canopy of trees around there there's really not much of a threat of buildings seeming to loom over the neighborhood, even if they are a block or two away. I just don't see that being a problem.

Thanks to Flash from Pittsburgh, a forum member here for these photos. Check out his website here:
http://metroscenes.com/

Boston's Back Bay/Beacon Hill area, which contains the city's two tallest buildings of 790 feet and 750 feet tall, and the old neighborhoods which border it to the left and right in this photo.
http://metroscenes.com/boston/boston.42.jpg

Night view.
http://metroscenes.com/boston/boston.54.jpg

Of course, this neighborhood has a good bit more density than in Austin, but this is still mostly residential.
http://metroscenes.com/boston/boston.49.jpg

Killer view of 111 Huntington Avenue, an office that was completed in 2002.
http://metroscenes.com/boston/boston.48.jpg

Night view.
http://metroscenes.com/boston/boston.58.jpg

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I actually have more respect for both (especially Milkshake) because they DON'T stand to benefit financially from obstructing the project. It's just entirely possible that what they're saying really IS true - that they think the point tower will overwhelm the historic neighborhood between 7th and 8th. (I don't think so, but this is at least a defensible position, unlike so many we see).

Love to see such a balanced position. It is not black and white . THe choice is not about 6th vs 7th as a boundary..... it is about that entire "neighbohood". I say it in quotes because it is mostly commercial. I walk it all the time. I wish it was residential...... but it (primarily) is not. We ( the royal we) have always seen that area as the last frontier in "downtown". I have very mixed feelings about new development there. I am fine with it as long as there is very stong support for the historic homes in the area. It could be a great residential area with new development....... just please protect the incredible historic houses in the area.

[KevinFromTexas]

By the way, what do people usually call this area of downtown? The Bremond Historic District?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I wish it was residential...... but it (primarily) is not. We ( the royal we) have always seen that area as the last frontier in "downtown". I have very mixed feelings about new development there. I am fine with it as long as there is very stong support for the historic homes in the area. It could be a great residential area with new development....... just please protect the incredible historic houses in the area.

I was thinking the same thing. I would love to buy one of those houses and live in it. It's probably cost prohibitive in terms of initial price, upkeep, and then when you put $ into it, the city will come along and re-access.

Yes, they are very beautiful, and it would be nice to see them protected. I had a friend who had a historic home. They fixed it up, and the city reaccessed taxes, making it un-affordable for them to continue to live in. That does not seem like a very good way to protect these homes. This makes it affordable only to the fairly wealthy or to businesses that can afford it. It's actually pretty easy to understand from a financial point why some of these people let these things rot so they are condemned and need to be knocked down - not that I agree with it.

[Chicago3rd]

Wow Great!
I have always loved Austin. Even the towers they had along Congress Avenue. But what always distrubed me was the downtown only had one axis...north and south.

Very happily I noticed while looking at the fantastic pictures posted of aerials taken from taking off at the airport that Austin's downtown axis will be prodomiently east to west....even better though it will be thick with east to west and north to south being filled it.

I think once people in Austin get to see what this looks like and what vitality it brings to their core that there will be even a larger rush to move downtown.

And the quality of buildings is great...are those designers not able to cross over the San Marcos, Guadelupe Rivers and Cibilo Creek to get the same sort of great stuff in the city to your southwest?

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

And the quality of buildings is great...are those designers not able to cross over the San Marcos, Guadelupe Rivers and Cibilo Creek to get the same sort of great stuff in the city to your southwest?

um none of these bodies of water are anywhere near austin!

[KevinFromTexas]

I think he was asking if the architects would be designing any towers in San Antonio.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

By the way, what do people usually call this area of downtown? The Bremond Historic District?

It's known as the Bremond Block Historic District, even though it covers more than one square block.

This entry from The Handbook of Texas Online notes:

They are located within the square block bordered by West Seventh, West Eighth, Guadalupe, and San Antonio streets. The district also includes several houses on the west side of San Antonio and the south side of West Seventh, at least three of which were built or altered by the North family.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

um none of these bodies of water are anywhere near austin!

So if you were to drive across I-35 and go over the San Marcos river and keep going and go over the Guadalupe River and then finally go over Cibilo....heading in the SW direction...where might you end up?

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think he was asking if the architects would be designing any towers in San Antonio.

I think Austin needs to go down arrest the SA planning commission sequester them in Austin and walk them through the work that is being done and being proposed in Austin...and only after a lie detector test confirming they have learned some taste they will be allowed to take Amtrack back....to S.A.

If all the buildings going up in Austin and built....Austin may be the third in line as far as Texas Urban centers.
Hopefully some of Austin's taste will filter down there.

[jaga185]

haha, brilliant!

But I do like the Austin tower, the more jealous I get, the better it is, lol.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by JAM

I was thinking the same thing. I would love to buy one of those houses and live in it. It's probably cost prohibitive in terms of initial price, upkeep, and then when you put $ into it, the city will come along and re-access.

Yes, they are very beautiful, and it would be nice to see them protected. I had a friend who had a historic home. They fixed it up, and the city reaccessed taxes, making it un-affordable for them to continue to live in. That does not seem like a very good way to protect these homes. This makes it affordable only to the fairly wealthy or to businesses that can afford it. It's actually pretty easy to understand from a financial point why some of these people let these things rot so they are condemned and need to be knocked down - not that I agree with it.

Yes, I agree that the city needs a way to create a tax incentive for historic homes to remain residential. They add so much to the character of the area....and the city. And people who live in them incur sooooo much additional cost to maintain them... I would gladly give up a bit of that tax base to have them around. I have at least been thankful that so many have stayed around as businesses.....

I think the area between 7th and MLK..... Guadalupe and Lamar should be open to new residential. It is a matter of time... why not set it up right now... put strong guidelines in place for historic properties before too many are bought by developers who can claim to be grandfathered into tearing them down.... there are plenty of properties not of a historic nature to be redeveloped...

BTW..... I walked past the Women's Club today. I truly do not see why they would object. No one live's there do they? They are simply a business in the area.... if thier business is not impacted..... don't see how they have much to say..... and the other businesses in the area will probably experience a rise in the value of their land, yes?

I think the project on 7th is a great use of underutilized land with teardown buildings..... and will insure the longevity of a great restaurant.... build it! I think it is the nature of folks to fight "encroahment". I am fine keeping Lamar as a fime limit..... but this land has long been mixed use.... and we will need the space in the future......

[M1EK]

Guys,

1. It's re-ASSESS, not re-ACCESS

2. You DO get a big juicy tax break for living in a historically zoned house.

[LoneStarMike]

I believe M1EK is correct.

See this site on the Brown Bulding at Eighth & Colorado.

Tax Discount

The Brown Building, built in 1938 and renovated in 1998, is designated as a Historic Landmark (H). This designation allows for tax abatements from Travis County, the City of Austin, the Austin Independent School District and Austin Community College. These tax abatements can discount property taxes as much as 70% for an owner occupant or as much as 35% for an investor.

BTW, the request for zoning change on this tower was Item 6 and was discussed at the December 12 Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting will be rebroadcast tonight (actually Saturday morning 12/16) at 12:35 am. and again at 6:00 am. on Monday (12/18) on Cable Channel 6.

[JAM]

I remember looking the tax break up at one point. I recollect (did I spell that right?) it knocking a bit off the appraised value - sorta like the homestead exemption. My friends personal experience was NOT a juicy tax break by any means.