AUSTIN | Austin Oaks PUD

[The ATX]

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

Yay, nothing like downsizing.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

Thanks for the link. This project got started well before I became an Austinite, and it's never been quite clear to me what the problem is aside from a kind of remote NIMBYism -- where somewhat distant homeowners project unproven traffic fears onto developments not even in their own hoods.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Thanks for the link. This project got started well before I became an Austinite, and it's never been quite clear to me what the problem is aside from a kind of remote NIMBYism -- where somewhat distant homeowners project unproven traffic fears onto developments not even in their own hoods.

If I was a developer, I'd have multiple sets of plans ready to go. One that I actually want to develop and a couple others that are bigger than what I intend.

There's no use in putting your actual plan forward as the first proposal, because no matter what you put forward initially, it will get a barrage of complaints and protest.

[drummer]

^^ I've often thought the same thing. I don't truly know what all goes into developments of this magnitude, but I would imagine that the cost of having plans that aren't intended to be used may be too high as well or else (I would think) folks would do just that. It seems only logical, not considering cost.

[Urbannizer]

First rendering for Austin Oaks

[Urbannizer]

https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/...-redevelopment

High and prominent on a western hillside just outside of the city’s core, Austin Oaks is a unique site that weaves together rolling hills with sprawling live oak trees into a beautiful Texas Hill Country landscape. Responding to the continued urban densification of Austin, the redevelopment will turn a 12-building corporate office park into a mixed-use campus that supports the needs of a growing community.

Natural site characteristics like a creek, the rolling hills, trees, wind, and the sun will influence the built environment. By incorporating live oaks and natural plazas with walking paths, building canopies, and man-made patios, our architectural solution will connect the landscape and buildings, creating a tailored design that both reflects and blends into the natural environment.

When complete, the redevelopment will feature 375 multifamily residential units and over 1.3 million square feet of office, retail, restaurant, and mixed-use space, plus surface parking and garages. Centrally located along a major north-south connector, the new development will serve as the entrance to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide an opportunity to integrate with nearby amenities.

[The ATX]

I hope those are new renderings. The original developers went through that arduous process with our terrible City Council just to get the development entitlements; then put the site up for sale. I don't know if they sold it.

[Urbannizer]

Stantec has updated their wepage for Austin Oaks.