Austin | 62 East Ave | 686 Feet | 57 Floors | Proposed - Page 2

enragedcamel · #21 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 2:42 PM**

We have too many gaps in the skyline still. At this point I'll take anything that fills those up, even if they are generic glass boxes.

Urbannizer · #22 Posted **Dec 21, 2022, 5:23 PM**

Currently a staging area for the two neighboring projects.

Jdawgboy · #23 Posted **Dec 22, 2022, 5:41 AM**

I'm excited for this project simply because of the density. Talk about squeezing in like skyscraper sardines. Love it!!

corvairkeith · #24 Posted **Dec 22, 2022, 2:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Currently a staging area for the two neighboring projects.

I wonder if this lot will be needed as alley access at least until the pass through on 700 River is open. Right now I think the alley is blocked on both the North and South.

drummer · #25 Posted **Dec 22, 2022, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'm excited for this project simply because of the density. Talk about squeezing in like skyscraper sardines. Love it!!

Right? That lot would have been overlooked as an option for a significant tower only a handful of years ago.

Urbannizer · #26 Posted **Feb 15, 2023, 2:30 AM**

634’ FAA filing

09/2023 - 9/2026 construction timeline

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external...72488811&row=3

Urbannizer · #27 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 4:09 AM**

jake.robs · #28 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 4:34 AM**

Honestly, I can't imagine a worse street presence.

resansom · #29 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 12:03 PM**

How does something like that even get approved?

ATXboom · #30 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by resansom

How does something like that even get approved?

Because it's on I35 access road. Cars are going to be zipping by fast.

JACKinBeantown · #31 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake.robs

Honestly, I can't imagine a worse street presence.

But those are the highest quality CMUs.

Jdawgboy · #32 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 3:30 PM**

In this particular situation, I don't mind. There really isn't much that can be done with such a small footprint and it's facing the I-35 frontage road. It could be worse to be quite honest. Just look at some of those new hotels next to it. I like the color and the brick work.

The ATX · #33 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 4:04 PM**

The Vesper has the same issue as does the long suffering Ikon proposal. Based on DC discussions for the Vesper, TxDOT's ROW prevents full Great Streets treatment on everything facing East Ave. With the exception of the "affordable" hotels, I think all the other projects did a good job on the side facing East Ave.

Geckos_Rule · #34 Posted **Mar 24, 2023, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Because it's on I35 access road. Cars are going to be zipping by fast.

Generally speaking that may be true, but in this area the access road is barely a true access road -- this property is only about 150-200 yards past the light at Cesar Chavez, and about 100 yards from the light at Holly street. It's also going to be within a block of entrances for 44 East, Naativo, Vesper, and three different hotels.

427MM · #35 Posted **Mar 25, 2023, 12:55 PM**

The ATX hit on this but the lack of amazing streetscape along this stretch of East Ave is 100% TXDOT being TXDOT. They really shouldn't be allowed in TX cities...

ohhey · #36 Posted **Mar 25, 2023, 1:38 PM**

1. This site doesn't sit on the service road section of East Ave.
2. The architecture at street level could certainly be improved - that isn't really dependent on any Great Streets/TXDOT discussion.

The ATX · #37 Posted **Mar 25, 2023, 1:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohhey

1. This site doesn't sit on the service road section of East Ave.
2. The architecture at street level could certainly be improved - that isn't really dependent on any Great Streets/TXDOT discussion.

East Ave south to the river is all part of TxDOT's ROW. The ROW isn't defined by service road use.

ohhey · #38 Posted **Mar 26, 2023, 3:24 AM**

I'm aware of that. Posters above were saying this fronts the access/service/frontage road (whichever terminology you prefer). I was pointing out that this site is south of the service road/East Ave split. East Ave is pretty low traffic on that stretch.

The ATX · #39 Posted **Mar 28, 2023, 10:10 AM**

The Design Commission failed to agree about supporting the density bonus. So it moves forward with no recommendation. But it will ultimately need CC approval for a zoning change because it got taller. It gained four floors and is now 684' - one foot taller than the Austonian.

LiveattheOasis · #40 Posted **Mar 28, 2023, 1:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Design Commission failed to agree about supporting the density bonus. So it moves forward with no recommendation. But it will ultimately need CC approval for a zoning change because it got taller. It gained four floors and is now 684' - one foot taller than the Austonian.

This one is getting interesting for sure. That entire Rainey Street area is going to be a city unto itself with regard to height. Coming north on S. Lamar is going to look a lot different soon.