AUSTIN | 70 Rainey | 419 FEET | 34 FLOORS | Complete - Page 2

KevinFromTexas · #21 Posted **Jan 31, 2014, 10:45 PM**

Wow. I like that!

East7thStreet · #22 Posted **Jan 31, 2014, 11:17 PM**

I'm an idiot and can't even find the pin button. Here is the east view (the first was from the west).

This project was going to be called "The Drake". The architect designed it so that the vast majority of the units were facing west to have views of Lady Bird Lake and the skyline.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ousuxs/12242222265/

zedaref · #23 Posted **Jan 31, 2014, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

Here is the east view (the first was from the west).

This project was going to be called "The Drake". The architect designed it so that the vast majority of the units were facing west to have views of Lady Bird Lake and the skyline.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ousuxs/12242222265/

Here's a screenshot to help:

Jdawgboy · #24 Posted **Feb 1, 2014, 8:51 PM**

It's a shame that it's not going to go up.

They really have cleared a lot of land between Rainey and the 35 frontage road. Several houses have been boarded up. Is this that bad choice low level project that is in the works? If it is, it's a perfect example between the difference of a highrise with a small foot print and a lowrise with a large sprawling footprint. It's going to ruin that whole area. Build up, not out!

ahealy · #25 Posted **Feb 1, 2014, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It's a shame that it's not going to go up.

They really have cleared a lot of land between Rainey and the 35 frontage road. Several houses have been boarded up. Is this that bad choice low level project that is in the works? If it is, it's a perfect example between the difference of a highrise with a small foot print and a lowrise with a large sprawling footprint. It's going to ruin that whole area. Build up, not out!

yeah, that really would've been so beautiful for Rainey. There really isn't anything attractive in that area. Kimber will be pretty, but nobody will be able to see it....Page/ does really sexy minimal stuff.

KevinFromTexas · #26 Posted **Feb 1, 2014, 10:19 PM**

It still bites that the original Hotel Van Zandt design was scrapped. This project would have been a nice compromise for losing the Hotel Van Zandt one. They both have streamlined masculine lines. They were bold architecture without being too crazy and out there.

ahealy · #27 Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It still bites that the original Hotel Van Zandt design was scrapped. This project would have been a nice compromise for losing the Hotel Van Zandt one. They both have streamlined masculine lines. They were bold architecture without being too crazy and out there.

agreed

lzppjb · #28 Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 7:45 PM**

This such a confusing lot. I cannot figure out what is going on. Can anyone provide a timeline of plans and owners?

East7thStreet · #29 Posted **Feb 2, 2014, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

This such a confusing lot. I cannot figure out what is going on. Can anyone provide a timeline of plans and owners?

This lot was foreclosed on a few years back. The pictures of the condo tower that I posted were of the plans that never got financing. The new owners are planning something similar...although they have not released any details or renderings.

ivanwolf · #30 Posted **May 14, 2014, 7:49 PM**

Found that the site plan SP-2013-0101C was issued May 5, 2014. So not long ago and it provides some elevations.

380' to top. 20 stories of living with a total of 31 stories plus roof stuff.

wwmiv · #31 Posted **May 14, 2014, 7:56 PM**

I think I'm going to really like this one, but I need a rendering first.

KevinFromTexas · #32 Posted **May 14, 2014, 9:53 PM**

Wow. That one has a lot of potential. I would absolutely love to see that vertical curved section lit with LED lights. It would really do a lot to brighten that side of downtown.

The ATX · #33 Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:03 PM**

Great find Ivanwolf.

Since the NIMBY MACC got the city to squash the last proposal, I wonder what kind of chance this one has?

bigdogc · #34 Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:07 PM**

Will the rainey neighborhood assoc. have any say in this?
As a rainey resident I would love to see this thing happen!

Jdawgboy · #35 Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:09 PM**

MACC just needs to gwt over it. They knew that area was rezoned Central Business District, if they didn't want to be surrounded by highrises then they should have found somewhere east of 35 to build the center.

The ATX · #36 Posted **May 14, 2014, 11:24 PM**

I don't understand what has changed since the last proposal failed. This is just as big - or even slightly bigger - than the last proposal for the site.

KevinFromTexas · #37 Posted **May 15, 2014, 12:59 AM**

I really don't get their opposition to something being built on that lot. It's not like there's some prominent view of their building from the east. No view from I-35 (which would be ridiculous to fight to save). Their best view is the one the museum has of downtown, and this building will be in the opposite direction. Not only that, but I would always assume that any museum would want to aspire to have something greater across the street from them than a dirt parking lot.

ivanwolf · #38 Posted **May 15, 2014, 7:25 PM**

I have friends that own one of the food trailers, Beef Cake Shop and they asked me to keep an eye out if anything got approved. They tell me nothing over two stories can be built, not sure why, but with this completely through the process Approved and Released it seems that its a go, nothing holding it up now. My friends will have to find another location I guess, this location was much better than the Round Rock spot they started at.

Jdawgboy · #39 Posted **May 15, 2014, 7:43 PM**

Next time ask them why they think only a 2 level building is the only thing that should go there considering it is in Downtown zoned Central Business District. I would love to hear their reasoning.

ivanwolf · #40 Posted **May 16, 2014, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Next time ask them why they think only a 2 level building is the only thing that should go there considering it is in Downtown zoned Central Business District. I would love to hear their reasoning.

They were confident that the MACC had some sort of control over that lot and had it restricted to only two floors that's why the Millennium Rainey moved from this spot to the Luster Pearl spot. Maybe Millennium Rainey just gave up and moved rather than fight MACC. And maybe by now the MACC lost its control that it had or never completed what ever action they were taking to prevent something over two floors being built. They wanted to protect the view of the building, from where Rainey St? not much of a view, the best view is from the trail. So I know its speculative but I'm not looking up documents, I just know that a permit to construct was issued for this condo building, so its unlikely the MACC can stop it now that its past all the reviews and likely public hearings.