AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[The ATX]

I'll throw my name in as a fan of stucco also. A lot of the new homes in my neighborhood are stucco, and I like the way they look.

[Syndic]

I used to live in Arizona, where stucco is everywhere. It's awful.

[East7thStreet]

Buncha stuccoists on this board. If done right there is nothing wrong with a little stucco. It's when you have those massive blank walls with no windows that it looks ugly. But all blank walls look horrible no matter the material used.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

Buncha stuccoists on this board. If done right there is nothing wrong with a little stucco. It's when you have those massive blank walls with no windows that it looks ugly. But all blank walls look horrible no matter the material used.

Absolutely this is true, and I come from Staten Island, the land of "instead of renovating our pre-war or 70s era home with quality materials, let's plaster it all over with stucco that (poorly) imitates the architectural flourishes there before." The only time stucco has been pulled off in these parts is with the new imitation-brownstone-style homes they've been building since 2000ish. Even there, there's hits and misses. At least in Arizona, they have the Spanish-style and Adobe look to defend the copious use of stucco there. Then there are the new mid-rises in Los Angeles, some of which are absolutely sublime, and define a style for LA the way the late-19th-century architecture of Paris defines that city.

The point of this digression: like with all building materials, when done correctly, stucco can be stunning.

[AusTex]

Stucco is a great material in some applications on buildings of 5 stories or less. Apartments and homes can look great clad with stucco. A stucco church tower can also look stunning, however, church towers do not have windows with mullions and glass. Any building over about 5 stories, with windows, that uses stucco looks cheap to me.

The reason to use stucco on any contemporary style highrise is to reduce the cost of building. Any highrise building clad in stucco looks like it is meant to be a temporary building...not a building for the ages.

Can anyone imagine a new highrise in Manhattan clad in stucco?

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I used to live in Arizona, where stucco is everywhere. It's awful.

I'm in Arizona today..... in a stucco building. Everthing here looks like it was built in the Stucco 80s

[KevinFromTexas]

Big news from UT.


UT regents expected to OK $334.5 million plan for med school

$334.5 million project

4 building complex

515,000 square feet of space in 3 buildings: an academic building, medical office building, and research building.

480,000 square foot teaching hospital.

New $250 million teaching hospital would replace University Medical Center Brackenridge.

The medical office building could be a joint venture with a private developer.

At least two parking garages would have 1,000 spaces.

Opening fall 2016.

Red River would need to be realigned "straightened" north of 15th Street. UT would pay for it.

Plans call for keeping the Erwin Center for now, but it would be moved in 6 to 15 years as the medical school grows.

The draft plan calls for future growth of a 120 bed psychiatric hospital and a cancer center. There could also be another medical office building and more parking garages. There could also be more academic and research buildings.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Big news from UT.


UT regents expected to OK $334.5 million plan for med school

$334.5 million project

4 building complex

515,000 square feet of space in 3 buildings: an academic building, medical office building, and research building.

480,000 square foot teaching hospital.

New $250 million teaching hospital would replace University Medical Center Brackenridge.

The medical office building could be a joint venture with a private developer.

At least two parking garages would have 1,000 spaces.

Opening fall 2016.

Red River would need to be realigned "straightened" north of 15th Street. UT would pay for it.

Plans call for keeping the Erwin Center for now, but it would be moved in 6 to 15 years as the medical school grows.

The draft plan calls for future growth of a 120 bed psychiatric hospital and a cancer center. There could also be another medical office building and more parking garages. There could also be more academic and research buildings.

Horible plan. Horrible. Total Sub-urban Campus thinking. Tear down the basketball pratice facility and remove it instead of a PARK!!!!!!! Go vertiacl with all that shit on that huge piece of land right accross from Brack. ( or is it in a CVC?)
Also, I think it's absolutely CRAZY to re-align Red River. Lets create even more traffic issues. It's one of only 3 (?) NW corridors we have bet 35 and Mopac.
I hope the city says no to the re-alignment and fights the plan to kill the greeen space that feeds into the park to the south.

Such incredible Institutional Narcissim on the part of UT once again.

Argh.

[KevinFromTexas]

The reason UT would be able to redevelop Centennial Park is because UT owns that land. It's not city owned land, so it's not a city park. UT could build a Walmart there if they wanted to.

The zip code for Centennial Park is 78701. As you can see from this map, the park isn't listed as a city owned park. Neither is Clark Field, which is also owned by UT.

http://www.austinparks.org/our-parks.html

Also I wouldn't be surprised if after Brackenridge is replaced we saw it torn down, and the land turned into more park space adjoining Waterloo Park to the west. Or they could at least realign Red River so that it would cut straight through the Brackenridge property just east of the parking garage. That would allow the land where the Brackenridge garage is now to join the rest of Waterloo Park. It would also move Red River Street away from Waller Creek and have it be a more intimate park.

And actually, straightening Red River would ease traffic congestion. I don't see how realigning it would cause more traffic problems. Curvy streets usually lead to traffic congestion.

[Syndic]

I'm actually in favor of developing some parks. I'd rather have density than a park that's hardly ever used and is costly to maintain. I realize I'm in the minority with this opinion. Obviously, we need some parks, but how many? It's easy to go overboard with the parks. Especially in a city like Austin. They spread the city out and make it feel suburban. A medical school can do a lot of good.

But this doesn't even seem like it's going to affect the park very much.



Notice that the academic building is directly south of Cooley Pavilion and the hospital is mostly in place of what was previously Red River Street. All this is doing is developing part of the Frank Erwin Center parking lot and the UT tennis courts. Small parts of Centennial Park look like they will be affected, but for the most part the park seems like it will be unscathed. Are we really so religiously and zealously NIMBYish about parks that we're unwilling to even sacrifice small parts of them in order to build a state of the art medical school? If so, I would have to ask why?

I like this plan. I think it's perfect. It adds density and coherence in a really responsible way. It's going to be a medical school right by a park, which will make for a really great experience for the employees, students, and patients.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The reason UT would be able to redevelop Centennial Park is because UT owns that land. It's not city owned land, so it's not a city park. UT could build a Walmart there if they wanted to.

The zip code for Centennial Park is 78701. As you can see from this map, the park isn't listed as a city owned park. Neither is Clark Field, which is also owned by UT.

http://www.austinparks.org/our-parks.html

Also I wouldn't be surprised if after Brackenridge is replaced we saw it torn down, and the land turned into more park space adjoining Waterloo Park to the west. Or they could at least realign Red River so that it would cut straight through the Brackenridge property just east of the parking garage. That would allow the land where the Brackenridge garage is now to join the rest of Waterloo Park. It would also move Red River Street away from Waller Creek and have it be a more intimate park.

And actually, straightening Red River would ease traffic congestion. I don't see how realigning it would cause more traffic problems. Curvy streets usually lead to traffic congestion.

I understand it's not city property... but That will not stop me from opposing it with the council or the regents! May be a loosing battle, but they need to know it is not a good idea.
As for Red River, you will now have to turn twice...once accross traffic either way to travel up or down Red River. I can't see how that would not affect traffic flow.

[Syndic]

I think eventually Brackenridge would be torn down and a new events center/basketball arena would be built in its place (this is badly needed for UT and for Austin). Then, the Frank Erwin Center could be torn down and replaced with... something. Not sure what. But it's UT land, so likely new university buildings of some kind.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I understand it's not city property... but That will not stop me from opposing it with the council or the regents! May be a loosing battle, but they need to know it is not a good idea.
As for Red River, you will now have to turn twice...once accross traffic either way to travel up or down Red River. I can't see how that would not affect traffic flow.

A) Red River is not a major thru route anyway, so it isn't that big of a deal.
B) I second Syndic completely.

[KevinFromTexas]

Most of Centennial Park is occupied by the tennis courts, which is mostly what this project would be replacing. So...you could argue that all it's replacing are the tennis courts, and that the park will be mostly untouched. And of course I'm sure there will be improvements made and better access to the creek. It could even follow some of the improvements we'll see at Waterloo Park after the flood control tunnel project is done.

[Syndic]

Here is a more detailed map of Phase 1 from the press release from UT today:



You can clearly see that the park largely survives.

The release also confirms that the Frank Erwin Center will be torn down and replaced, but not for at least 6 years. There are some rumors on Orangebloods.com that it could be relocated to Mueller. I don't know how likely that is. I'm not sure I like that idea. I'd rather it be an on-campus arena, although a Mueller arena would certainly enliven that area of Austin in a huge way.

Here's a map from this KUT News article of what the complete buildout could look like, with the Erwin Center completely demolished and replaced:



Man, this will radically change Austin as we know it. That part of town will be completely unrecognizable.

[Jdawgboy]

I honestly would like to see taller buildings but I have a feeling that the CVC's are fairly dense and close together in that area since its one of the few unhindered views of the State Capital from I-35, I doubt we will see anything much taller than the current Brack building. I seriously hope if they align Red river they will not have it split like that at 15th because that would be the stupidest thing they could ever do. If they wait until Brack is torn down to do the changes then fine but not before.

[Syndic]

Here's another one from this article showing even more:



Looks like they're going to develop that whole parking lot north of MLK, which I'm all for. Also, that little triangle of land north of MLK between Red River and I-35 is getting a building. That's good. I've always thought that empty land was such a waste.

Here's another from the UT Master Plan PDF (
FYI, the good stuff starts on page 148) showing the whole plan:



What stands out to me is that they're leaving basically no parking lots. All parking lots are being developed. That's good for Austin's urban environment.

[NYC_Longhorn]

This is awesome for several reasons:

1) Promotes Economy and Development (including more density on the surrounding areas)
2) It will frame the View of the Capital and UT and make downtown appear as more of a dense development towards Lady Bird.... kind of like Chicago or Manhattan as seen from the water...
3) That area wouldn't develop well if it were looked at as an opportunity to build a mega-tall hospital building like in Little Rock. All you can hope for at that point is for TCBY to build something tall. This is a much bigger deal than that.... It lays the foundation for continued development and financial protection of downtown.... We don't ever want the downtown area to fizzle if one part of our economy fails (like Detroit)
4) All in all, it will mean more height and density (and urban rail)...

Yay

[KevinFromTexas]

There are some pretty extensive view corridors on those lots, but there is one large slice where this is no CVC.



Also, if you look at this rendering that Syndic posted, they're showing an area larger than just the Centennial Park and Erwin Center lots. It shows the medical school campus occupying land from 13th street to 19th Street between Trinity and I-35. And if you look at the CVC map above, it shows that there is only one CVC in the area surrounded by 12th & 15th Street, Red River Street & I-35. So there could be some tall buildings in there.

I count maybe 7 highrises (115 feet or taller) in this rendering. The two tallest buildings on the southern end of the complex look like they might *might* be close to 200 feet.




This could also help to push the redevelopment of the Capitol Complex. Note in the rendering above that I posted, that the medical school complex goes all the way south as far south as Waterloo Park. It would be amazing to see Waterloo Park be flanked by development on both sides with something better than huge parking garages and parking lots.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I think eventually Brackenridge would be torn down and a new events center/basketball arena would be built in its place (this is badly needed for UT and for Austin). Then, the Frank Erwin Center could be torn down and replaced with... something. Not sure what. But it's UT land, so likely new university buildings of some kind.

Just looked thru the master plan. The Erwin is considered a "Medium term" property. When that area is filled out there is no Arena in site. But there is also no mentio of where an Arena would end up!