AUSTIN | Southeast Austin/Riverside Corridor Updates

[drummer]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

Something seems off about the unit count. 684 units across 13 buildings? There's no way each building has ~52 discrete units apiece. I used to live in that area and back then most of the apartments in the area leased by the room (e.g. a 4 BR unit with only 3 tenants would have one BR door permanently locked). Maybe it's different now that the area's not so student-oriented. I don't think the 684 vs 317 is an apples-apples comparison.

I was wondering about that count myself. What you're saying makes sense.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

I was wondering about that count myself. What you're saying makes sense.

It does make a lot of sense. I also appreciate the insight.

My takeaway knowing that “unit” in this context (private student living) is likely per room key rather than per apartment key (like dorms), still suggests we will see a massive decrease in functional population density with the new development. You’re replacing apartments that had 3 or 4 people in them with near-constant visitors with much larger apartments populated by mostly single younger professionals without near-constant visitors. And this is happening right before we build Project Connect, with routes and stops partially predicated on our current population density and a (potentially false) assumption that population density will, even if it does not increase, will at least never decrease lot-by-lot.

For a positive interpretation:

These working professionals will use Project Connect for work and can actually afford the fares and the taxes to sustain the system, while students would be using the system (when they could afford to) while largely not also paying into the system’s maintenance via taxes. So, maybe it is a wash? In other words, it isn’t exactly clear that the loss of population density, when taken on a case-by-case basis, always matters. At least the people going to be living here are paying into the system in a way that allows us to maintain the system.

Oh, and the new apartments will have way better street presence. Overall, that pushes this project to a win for Austin IMHO.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It does make a lot of sense. I also appreciate the insight.

My takeaway knowing that “unit” in this context (private student living) is likely per room key rather than per apartment key (like dorms), still suggests we will see a massive decrease in functional population density with the new development. You’re replacing apartments that had 3 or 4 people in them with near-constant visitors with much larger apartments populated by mostly single younger professionals without near-constant visitors. And this is happening right before we build Project Connect, with routes and stops partially predicated on our current population density and a (potentially false) assumption that population density will, even if it does not increase, will at least never decrease lot-by-lot....

From the article:

The apartment complex is to be vacated by year’s end so that it can be razed and the property will be divided into four quadrants.

One of the quadrants will be redeveloped as a 317-unit, single building project — River Park/Block 15 Apartments.

The remaining three quadrants will be redeveloped for commercial and retail space.

https://www.virtualbx.com/constructi...t-development/

It sounds like they are adding roughly half the units back on one quarter of the space. The "single building project" sounds like it might have some nice height to it!

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

For a positive interpretation:

These working professionals will use Project Connect for work and can actually afford the fares and the taxes to sustain the system, while students would be using the system (when they could afford to) while largely not also paying into the system’s maintenance via taxes. So, maybe it is a wash? In other words, it isn’t exactly clear that the loss of population density, when taken on a case-by-case basis, always matters. At least the people going to be living here are paying into the system in a way that allows us to maintain the system.

Oh, and the new apartments will have way better street presence. Overall, that pushes this project to a win for Austin IMHO.

An amendment to my previous post: If they develop the property as planned, it does sound like an overall reduction in density as they plan to redevelop the rest as commercial and retail, not residential. So wwmiv is absolutely right that this is a lowering of population density and it does sound like lots of people could end up working in the area in the long-term and business/sales taxes could be a potential plus overall.

EDIT: Also we vs us already posted this info, so sorry for the totally redundant posts!!!!

[wwmiv]

Delete

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JollyvilleJ-Rad

An amendment to my previous post: If they develop the property as planned, it does sound like an overall reduction in density as they plan to redevelop the rest as commercial and retail, not residential. So wwmiv is absolutely right that this is a lowering of population density and it does sound like lots of people could end up working in the area in the long-term and business/sales taxes could be a potential plus overall.

EDIT: Also we vs us already posted this info, so sorry for the totally redundant posts!!!!

Actually, no, I think your quoted detail means you’re right:

Old: 684 rentable units (bedrooms) spread across 13 buildings each holding around 20 apartments equals around 636 people given a typical 7% vacancy I’d wager vacancy is higher, given the condition of the area’s comps — so let’s say 600.

New: 317 rentable units (apartments) each with an average of 1.25 people per unit to account for variation in number of bedrooms per apartment and (related) household size, with the same vacancy rate is 368. Multiply this by 4, and you’re at 1,472 assuming that they build similarly on the other three quadrants. Let’s say 1,400.

1,400 >>>> 600.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Actually, no, I think your quoted detail means you’re right:

Old: 684 rentable units (bedrooms) spread across 13 buildings each holding around 20 apartments equals around 636 people given a typical 7% vacancy I’d wager vacancy is higher, given the condition of the area’s comps — so let’s say 600.

New: 317 rentable units (apartments) each with an average of 1.25 people per unit to account for variation in number of bedrooms per apartment and (related) household size, with the same vacancy rate is 368. Multiply this by 4, and you’re at 1,472 assuming that they build similarly on the other three quadrants. Let’s say 1,400.

1,400 >>>> 600.

Sorry - help me understand the "multiply this by 4" part. My understanding from Urbannizer's previous post is only this quadrant would have residential, meaning the other three would be commercial, etc.

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

I didn't post the full article. Unfortunately, the remaining tracts will not be residential.

[freerover]

I think the author of the article doesn't know what they are talking about. The TIA says 2 parcels are going to be used for housing. 379 and 350 units.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/attachme...R%2FTLrKWmG3n9

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by freerover

I think the author of the article doesn't know what they are talking about. The TIA says 2 parcels are going to be used for housing. 379 and 350 units.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/attachme...R%2FTLrKWmG3n9

Okay, so about the same residential population density but higher functional population density (workers, retailers, visitors).

[Urbannizer]

Southeast OZ Mixed-Use

New MUD?

https://placemkr.com/properties/southeast-oz-mixed-use/

[wwmiv]

I wonder what their plans are for the St Elmo parcels they own.

[wwmiv]

Any idea where on Riverside this is?

[sjk]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Any idea where on Riverside this is?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the development that was going to be taking place where the Ballpark student housing is located.

[wwmiv]

The following, not the above, is the Ballpark redevelopment project.

Originally Posted by cvillehorn

Anyone seen this?

https://www.riverpark-atx.com/

Plans released for 109-acre, over 10 million-square-foot mixed-use development along Riverside Drive
Developer Presidium and investment manager Partners Group released plans Dec. 21 for River Park, a 109-acre project east of the Oracle campus near the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and East Riverside Drive.

Plans include more than 10 million square feet of office, retail, hospitality, entertainment and residential space. The developers received zoning changes in 2019 from Austin City Council for a 97-acre project, then called 4700 Riverside, in a controversial 6-3 vote. The new project adds the 12-acre Parke Green retail center into the plans, which the developer also owns. Today, the Parke Green retail center includes businesses such as LA Fitness, dd's Discounts and Twin Liquors.

[ILUVSAT]

^^^Just curious...since when has Central Texas become a colonial empire? Metropole?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

^^^Just curious...since when has Central Texas become a colonial empire? Metropole?

I couldn’t fit the word “metropolitan“ into a single line, iirc.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by sjk

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this was the development that was going to be taking place where the Ballpark student housing is located.

According to this map on the website, it looks like it may be the student apartments on the east side of Crossing Place. Or course the rendering on that page appears to be the large parcel slated for mixed use at 71/130... pretty sure that's not the location for this particular project, ha!

https://placemkr.com/submarket/southeast/

[OfficialPBreton]

Here's some pictures of the current development of Alexan Riverside (across from South Shore District). I've heard it called 1919/2015 Riverside or some variation of an address off of Royal Crest. This is the building that was slated to take down the Bingo Hall, and now I'm seeing that full strip mall, which included Club Latinos, get demolished.

Overall view of the development



Closer view of the demolition



Full album

[corvairkeith]

That development also displaced my favorite taco truck/ sit down restaurant combo. Fortunately they didn't move far and the brick and mortar component now has a drive thru.

[OfficialPBreton]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

That development also displaced my favorite taco truck/ sit down restaurant combo. Fortunately they didn't move far and the brick and mortar component now has a drive thru.

Yeah, I frequent the area, so I was actually familiar with the building that they ended up refurbishing and moving into. They did a great job, it looks very pretty.

(For those of you who haven't been, it's a great restaurant: Rosita's Al Pastor. It's one of my friend's favorites and the food truck still sits outside the main building if you want to experience what eating there was like before the move)