AUSTIN | Southeast Austin/Riverside Corridor Updates
http://www.statesman.com/business/co...826grayco.html
Quote:
|
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/con...ncil_edit.html
Quote:
|
I'm glad that the paper got behind this. It's about time that people stood up for density and stood up to those NIMBY save townlake people.
Seriously, this project is going to be a football field away from town lake. Height shouldn't even be an issue. |
I find it funny that the people who actually live in that neighborhood WANT that development... meanwhile the same minority group of 20 from a different neighborhood are trying to stop it.
It appears as if the neighborhood engaged in some type of study that got the input of the entire community... not just community leadership. The majority is speaking here! My take away is that perhaps the city should fund more comprehensive neighborhood studies to gather the collective voice... not just the voice of a few that hang out at city hall all day long. |
This says it all, "The project meets all 28 requirements for the zoning change it is seeking". Seems like a no-brainer.
|
I am also happy to see the Statesman back this. I can wait to see who voted how! Gee, wonder how Ms Laura will vote?
|
390 feet from lake seems plenty far back. I don't know why anyone would get upset over this, seems like a good thing.
This orgainization has made it easy to contact your city reps: (of course they are against it, they seem to be against anything, starting to get hard to take them seriously, not sure what is real or not real with these guys sometimes) http://www.savetownlake.org/ContactReps.html |
Most of the the trees, Cypress especially, that line the river are 85 to 100 feet tall. The tallest buildings here will probably be 90 feet, though the article mentioned something about one being 120 feet. The taller buildings would be set farthest from the river, 650 feet away infact. You'd be lucky to be able to see them at all from Riverside Drive, let alone from the river (since the elevation is lower) and from the other side.
To put this project into perspective, the CSC/Silicon Labs buildings flanking the city hall downtown, are each around 100 feet tall, and City Hall is 67 feet tall. Even at 120 feet tall, that is such a modest height, even for that area. Just look at that new office building on West 5th Street. The Capstar at Compass Plaza. It's 100 feet tall and it's hardly noticeable along the river and anywhere around downtown. I think one thing that drives these anti-development arguments is most people have no idea what a 100 foot building looks like. They hear that number 100 and freak out and think it's a mountain. Of course there are probably a couple hundred 100 foot tall buildings all over Austin. |
Quote:
When Spring was going thru the approval process, people were standing on the pedestrian bridge petitioning against it, saying it would create a canyon effect on the lake. I was really taken back by their statements at the time, and now that it is finished, it is simply just funny. Spring seems so far from the lake that it doesn't even matter, yet these people were pationate about the canyon effect it was going to create. |
So how did the vote go?
|
Quote:
|
9/24
Quote:
|
^So today (Thursday) would be the day.
Quote:
http://www.statesman.com/business/co...924grayco.html |
Quote:
Read more |
This is a great step forward in making this area much nicer for all Austinites.
Just finished sending a personal thank you note for getting this approved to each council person including Leffingwell and Morrison. Here's an easy way to thank them all. http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm BTW - If you have not ever been down to this area of town, it's worth the trip to check it out. See for yourself what 90 feet will do. IMO It is irreleavant to the lake. There is ample park space in the area. It council really wants to do something about preserving the area, then they should just tear down the apartments and turn the area in to park land and eliminate S. Lakeshore Blvd. |
Okay I did my part and placed a thank you letter to the council.
|
I think another reason this project might be looked at disdainfully by some is the tone and language used by the media to describe the project. If you look through all the articles (and also listen to some of the TV news reports), politically charged words like high-rise and tower keep being used to describe these projects. Tower? Really? By the definition stated by these forums, high-rise has to be at least 200 feet. These "towers" are half that. They would be mid-rise at best, very similar to what has gone up in West Campus recently. I don't know if these words are being thrown around on purpose, but I can see how people, set in their ways and unwilling to research what's happening on their own, could picture a tower being built next to town lake with these projects being described this way. Granted, I wouldn't even mind if these buildings were towers, but come on, Greyco needs to do a better PR job and at least get the newspapers to correct their language on these projects. I certainly hope everything works out, because everything I have seen and heard about this project makes it seem like a major step in the right direction for that area.
|
Yeah, I pointed that out on the comments page. Tower? Really? 120 feet is a decent height in some places, but it's hardly a tower.
By the way, Emporis' definition of a high rise is a building that is at least 115 feet tall, or one that has at least 12 floors. I kind of think it's a dumb cutoff point. Also, the Austin Fire Department, along with most other cities classify buildings that are at least 75 feet tall to be a highrise. That's even more ridiculous though. I remember the articles a while back (a few years) about sprinkler systems being retrofitted into some of the older dorm buildings around UT. The policy said any building at or above 75 feet (a highrise) had to have sprinklers and other fire safety devices. Believe it or not, some of the older dorm buildings didn't have them, or hadn't been updated in years. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought this was under construction already, I guess not. I was asking for the building heights. Apparently it's gone through some design changes, too.
Quote:
|
Some links with renderings and information about the project. This probably isn't current, but I hadn't seen this stuff before. One rendering shows a 12 to 13-story building.
http://www.landpmarketing.com/case-s...shore-district https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...jhg9d_UhnH7QPQ http://firstaustinproperties.com/wp-...hore-Flyer.pdf http://chelrealty.com/austin-south-s...istrict/images |
http://www.statesman.com/business/re...n-2132079.html
Quote:
|
I love the idea of a pedestrian bridge there, it is such a long stretch of land from 35 to pleasant valley, that would be a great option. Also, if we don't get a few buildings of at least 8 stories i will pissed.
|
Site plan with elevations for South Shore IV - 90 feet with 7 floors - 2000 South Lakeshore Boulevard.
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...IV_PLAN_01.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Site plan for Willow Hill Hotel - 59 feet - 4 floors. This is at East Riverside and South Pleasant Valley.
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...an_PLAN_01.pdf |
Quote:
Michael Hsu is doing the design for the 128-room Austin location. You can see the similarities in design between this rendering for the Los Angeles location: https://i.imgur.com/HIBdGka.jpg And the elevations for the Austin location: https://i.imgur.com/xacluqm.png |
Site plan for 6400 East Riverside Drive. Elevations are on page 53.
ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...se_PLAN_01.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Survey flags are now all around 1301-1401 Tinnin *Ford Road. I think Oracle acquired this site, although I'm not 100% sure. It's on the other side of the street of the DQ and then south.
https://preview.ibb.co/cLWxrz/tinninfordsurvey.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Across the street" means the ones on the next block down toward the lake on Tinnin Ford, on the east side of the street. That was an apartment (circa 1968?) to condo conversion about a decade ago. |
Looks like some of the buildings near the Catalyst redevelopment are going to have phones to prices in Central East Austin getting much more expensive:
https://glasstire.com/2018/06/23/pum...ady-bird-lake/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I read that four times trying to figure it out. Phones to prices?? So they will cost in phones rather than money? Better save up all the old used phones then.:whistle: |
Quote:
|
South Shore IV - 90 feet with 7 floors - 2000 South Lakeshore Boulevard
Is now well underway. https://i.ibb.co/FYnygpY/ss.jpg and https://i.ibb.co/jM1YzQp/ss1.jpg |
10-12 story towers to replace Mesh apartment complexes, very close to Oracle.
Austin’s premier woman developer seeks zoning amendments for projects near Oracle |
Quote:
|
The PC passed the height increase to allow for the 10-12 story residential buildings near the Oracle Campus.
|
Quote:
|
Hopefully this is just the first step in height density. Would like to see 15-20+ story towers all along Riverside. I envision a sort of Wilshire Blvd. effect with highrises stretching from DT southeast towards the airport.
|
Quote:
|
Would that then be considered our '3rd' downtown? Seeing high-rises clustered just to the southeast as well as to the distant north (Domain) would make Austin look so much bigger. Around 30 years ago, the only tallish buildings were pretty much along and next to Congress Avenue. Then the next biggest deal was around the Arboretum. One of those towers was featured in the movie 'Office Space'.
My only concern about opening up Riverside to new heights...as downtown runs out of space leaving going taller the only option in the near future, will more abundant parcels on Riverside provoke developers into choosing to build cheaper mid-rises there than really expensive high-rises downtown while still remaining relatively close to downtown? |
I'd like to see more height in the 'burbs. However Riverside is very close to ABIA. There are likely some height restrictions. Nothing that would stop most mid to high-rises but there won't be any Austonians or Independents on Riverside. A nice mix of low, mid and high-rises would be perfect.
|
I think the next area in the city that will go virtical is the St. Elmo District which will likely stretch from just east of S. 1st and St. Elmo to I-35 probably over the next 20 years as all of that old light industrial space is phased out. St. Elmo Market and the surrounding midrises are only the beginning. Eventually we will see more and more redevelopment and I'm confident that in time that development will increase in height especially if we can get a rail line down Congress Avenue.
|
Someone I remember posted a very useful map of the approach map (I doubt that's the technical name for it) of ABIA showing the FAA height restrictions surrounding the airport. If someone remembers what I'm talking about, I'll add it to our list of helpful links here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=230371 On St. Elmo, I agree. I've always assumed that area would upzone/rezone eventually. The whole area around Ben White. All that industrial stuff. If you drive down South Congress now, it's looking sad with some vacant lots where they've already bulldozed some stuff for development, but that area could really come alive eventually. I'm less optimistic that South First could ever be as urban as Congress and Lamar are. It's a much narrower street lacking a turn lane and there are no bike lanes, plus, it's much hillier. I used to huff and puff up those hills on my bike on the way to downtown before I finally came to my senses and took to the bike lanes on Congress. Even so, I avoid Congress these days because southern portion of South Congress is kind of hairy, and dark at night. So, I take Vinson and then dart over to Congress via either St. Elmo or Radam. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.