AUSTIN | 405 Colorado Street | 356 FEET | 25 FLOORS | Completed

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The extra parking is not needed. There's parking structures within a block or two of that location and none of them get to capacity even on busy nights. One garage that I frequently park at used to be open on Thursday night's but they've since stopped within the last 6 months because there's not enough demand. We don't need an overabundance of underused parking garages DT. If Brandywine thinks they will make money with parking, I suggest they go around and take a look at surrounding garages first because they won't.

The garages are needed for the daytime. Downtown is pretty full and with cramming of more employees per floor, it's hard to find adequate parking.

As an aside, pulling out of the garages on Lavaca and Colorado at 5:30 has become a nightmare. Long waits just to get out.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Speculator

The garages are needed for the daytime. Downtown is pretty full and with cramming of more employees per floor, it's hard to find adequate parking.

As an aside, pulling out of the garages on Lavaca and Colorado at 5:30 has become a nightmare. Long waits just to get out.

I'd even argue against that premise that there are not enough garages for the public during the day. I frequent DT multiple times a week day and night and I have no problems finding parking during the day. In terms of workforce parking, maybe garages at specific office buildings get full, but that has to do with the amount of workers driving as opposed to using mass transit or carpooling. Of course those garages aren't open to public parking during the day, however there are several garages that are and they don't fill to capacity on any given weekday. If people are having difficulty finding parking it simply means they are not aware of how many garages that are open to public parking during the day. That's something the City of Austin should improve on.

I'm not saying Brandywine shouldn't have parking, but since they are wanting to build more parking than what is actually needed for the amount of people that will work in the building, it becomes an issue of oversupply. We are doing a pretty good job in transforming DT into a place where you don't need a car to get around. Even Brandywine was trying to tout that aspect with their tweet that you can look at over on the last page, though it's pretty odd for them to promote considering they want to have a ginormous parking podium as part of their project. To which I responded to their tweet pointing it out.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't really mind the parking since inevitably downtown is going to lose some with parking lots going away and garages being torn down and replaced with towers. What's most important to the pedestrian game in downtown is making their experience better. That doesn't mean having to do away with garages or even reducing the number of spaces. I care more about buildings having more street level retail and street level designs that are inviting and engaging, instead of off-putting. We are doing good with our better streets plan, but I think some projects are still dropping the ball on retail.

[starboy92]

So what happens to all these parking structures when all cars or at least the majority become self driving?

[SkyPie]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't really mind the parking since inevitably downtown is going to lose some with parking lots going away and garages being torn down and replaced with towers. What's most important to the pedestrian game in downtown is making their experience better. That doesn't mean having to do away with garages or even reducing the number of spaces. I care more about buildings having more street level retail and street level designs that are inviting and engaging, instead of off-putting. We are doing good with our better streets plan, but I think some projects are still dropping the ball on retail.

Well said, I agree.

[smith_atx]

Originally Posted by starboy92

So what happens to all these parking structures when all cars or at least the majority become self driving?

In the long term, I'd say leased by the ride share/rental companies for car storage and charging facilities.

[the Genral]

I used to park in an underground parking garage for $5 an hour in NYC, then take the subway to Madison Square Garden. On the ground floor was retail and there was either residential or offices on the upper floors, block after block. Its always been that way with enough foot traffic to support retail. I still have doubts we'll even come close to that here because of high rent prices. And I can only wish that most if not all new parking structures were subterranean with retail on the ground floor. 405 looks to have aspirations of being the go to parking garage downtown, thinly disguised as an office tower. But its not the worst looking parking garage I've ever seen, if you have to go above ground. And nooooo, I'm NOT warming up to this project, I still don't like it. Maybe projects like the Avenue with no parking will benefit from this if 405 offers monthly parking leases, but wouldn't that defeat the concept behind carlessness downtown?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Speculator

The garages are needed for the daytime. Downtown is pretty full and with cramming of more employees per floor, it's hard to find adequate parking.

This is a true, cold, hard fact. Hard to argue with it unless you don't have to deal with it. Austin is a car centric society. Until that is no longer true, people need a place to put their car, downtown, suburbs, and just about any other place in the metro.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Maybe projects like the Avenue with no parking will benefit from this if 405 offers monthly parking leases, but wouldn't that defeat the concept behind carlessness downtown?

This is my fear for the Avenue -a large portion of those people WILL have cars and will need a place to put them. That means less parking for people who don't live downtown and want/need to shop or work downtown.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by JAM

This is a true, cold, hard fact. Hard to argue with it unless you don't have to deal with it. Austin is a car centric society. Until that is no longer true, people need a place to put their car, downtown, suburbs, and just about any other place in the metro.

But how long will that be a fact? 5 years? 10 years? This building is going to be around for much longer than that, and when individual ownership of cars goes by the wayside, this building will serve as a monument to that waste and excess. Even *if* it were useful immediately...

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by JAM

Austin is a car centric society. Until that is no longer true, people need a place to put their car, downtown, suburbs, and just about any other place in the metro.

Encouraging more people to bring cars downtown isn't going to solve Austin's car-centric problem.

[SMC]

Originally Posted by JAM

This is a true, cold, hard fact. Hard to argue with it unless you don't have to deal with it. Austin is a car centric society. Until that is no longer true, people need a place to put their car, downtown, suburbs, and just about any other place in the metro.

I lurk on here but have to respond to this. I could not disagree with this more. It drives me crazy when I hear this. Austin is not inherently "car-centric" any more than we desire it to be. Either we change the way we build and make Austin more of a place for people or we don't.

Not to mention this nonsense about downtown Austin parking being "full". I work downtown and I take the bus most days. On days when I drive, which is usually several days a month throughout the year, I have no problem finding street parking after driving around 5-10 minutes almost any time of day. If I wanted to pay for an off-street lot I have plenty of options.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

But how long will that be a fact? 5 years? 10 years?

For a long time I'm sure. Very few people on this board have ditched their cars, they just like to dream of it. Little old ladies don't park under I-35 to go shopping downtown. They either valet or find a spot with in walking distance with heels on. That isn't far. The general populace that doesn't hang out on this board thinks finding parking downtown is difficult. They are not down here everyday and don't know where the secret spots are, nor are they inclined to drive around looking for one. They don't have time for that, may as well head to the mall where parking is ample and not a hassle. It doesn't matter what this board thinks, its what they think. People on this board always want more shopping downtown, but a building with no place for dwellers to put their cars only serves to make it more difficult for the retailer. Anther 1000 cars downtown, with no place to put them is not going to make things better, that is for sure

http://austin.culturemap.com/news/ci...ratgey-report/.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Encouraging more people to bring cars downtown isn't going to solve Austin's car-centric problem.

This.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Encouraging more people to bring cars downtown isn't going to solve Austin's car-centric problem.

Nonexistent parking won't solve Austin's car-centric problem either, it will simply encourage businesses to locate themselves out of downtown. I work in a downtown office. A huge percentage of the people in this office MUST drive to get to work, and even those who could take transit generally find driving faster and more convenient. That's just the reality of Austin.

IMO getting the pedestrian/transit friendly city that we want starts with an active and highly populated downtown. To get that we need to remove barriers to employers, not create them.

Anyway, this building is ugly. If it's replacing existing parking lots/garages--which can then be turned into mixed use buildings with functional retail--then I guess I am for it. But it definitely sucks compared to other projects on this board.

[drummer]

Thanks to post-war development, this is true for a lot of cities...built for the car. To change it would be a massive gamble for all involved to built a proper transit system that could feasibly replace cars. In my opinion (and that of most folks on here, I believe), the gamble is worth it, of course, but I would say that most in Austin sadly don't share that opinion. Developers have to look forward but also have to be pragmatic.

I personally don't like (read: hate) this building, and the massive parking deck is part of my reason. However, I can't change the fact that ugly specimens like this one will pop up for a while now...

[drummer]

Okay, I had to come back and shine a little hope on our city and post-war cities in general...

The automobile transformed the entire world in a generation or two...less than 100 years. Who says that can't happen again for the better with some new tech (or a return to old tech with an update, a la trains)? Costs are impossibly high, etc., and I agree...but hey, automobiles were a luxury item when they came out (and still are in much of the world, especially in my part of China), yet now they're beyond ubiquitous. Just wanted to give a "Comeback, we can do it!" pep talk after all the dread from others and myself, haha.

Here's an idea for the parking deck after cars become obsolete (haha!)... Downhill roller derby-style races. Boom.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by drummer

Thanks to post-war development, this is true for a lot of cities...built for the car. To change it would be a massive gamble for all involved to built a proper transit system that could feasibly replace cars. In my opinion (and that of most folks on here, I believe), the gamble is worth it, of course, but I would say that most in Austin sadly don't share that opinion. Developers have to look forward but also have to be pragmatic.

Short of technological revolution, it will never happen with Austin's configuration. To much of the city's population (and especially VOTING population) lives too far away from the city center to ever be effectively served by present-technology mass transit. Density has to come first. (On a side note, are there any American cities with density comparable to Austin that have notable better mass transit? I'm not aware of any.)

[The ATX]

Due to the lack of a quorum, the Design Commission meeting was cancelled tonight.

[Riverranchdrone]

I believe Austin is not as car centric as we believe, but rather just a product of our own planning. We only build for cars. So that is our only option. The only light rail line that we have is spurring denser development. The more we build the more we can increase density to make it useful. These new buildings have no need for parking. Much of downtown is pretty walkable already. We cant keep waiting for density to catch up with transportation. we need the transportation in place that will create density.