Brackenridge at MidTown

[WorldTexas]

Embrey is turning dirt!

Has anyone seen any renderings or have any other info on this project? I didn't see anything on their site. I'm curious how tall this is going to be considering the BizJournal tab header says "Embrey developing high-rise."

Embrey to develop $32 million housing development near Brackenridge Park
W. Scott Bailey

Embrey Partners plans to break ground on Tuesday on a 282-unit luxury rental community in the Mahnke Park area north of downtown.

Read more: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...n-housing.html

[Keep-SA-Lame]

I'm assuming the site is that funky apartment complex behind the children's museum on Brackenridge Avenue?

[WorldTexas]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

I'm assuming the site is that funky apartment complex behind the children's museum on Brackenridge Avenue?

That's the $32 million question! There are quite a few older complexes behind the new Children's Museum and I don't know if this is the one directly behind or one of the others in the area.

[miaht82]

223 Brackenridge is the address.
The funky 4 story compound directly behind is 123 Brack, so I assume it is the one right behind THAT one, on the other side of Pine St.
That complex seems to be going all the way over to Mulberry and seemingly so, the permits are for 10 buildings, 1 mail kiosk, and 2 garages (4 car and 6 car.) The fact that it has a mail kiosk and 2 small parking garages leads me to believe that it will an updated version of the same ol'. Its a shame, but I'm sure the rents will be higher to pay for the new construction, leading to a bit more disposable income for the area.

This is a quote from BizJournals:
Project officials say The Brackenridge at MidTown will replace an older residential complex that had long been plagued by public health and safety concerns.

Google Street View 223 Brackenridge and slide a bit to the right (towards Oaktree Dr.) if you don't believe that quote.


[WorldTexas]

Originally Posted by miaht82

The fact that it has a mail kiosk and 2 small parking garages leads me to believe that it will an updated version of the same ol'. Its a shame, but I'm sure the rents will be higher to pay for the new construction, leading to a bit more disposable income for the area.


Hmmmm... I'm having trouble picturing the final product. 282 units spread across 10 buildings for 28 units per building? And only 10 garage spaces for 282 units?

Or am I reading all of this incorrectly?

Originally Posted by miaht82

Google Street View 223 Brackenridge and slide a bit to the right (towards Oaktree Dr.) if you don't believe that quote.


Very nice. Nothing suspicious here folks... Just 3 squad cars hanging out.

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by WorldTexas

Hmmmm... I'm having trouble picturing the final product. 282 units spread across 10 buildings for 28 units per building? And only 10 garage spaces for 282 units?

Or am I reading all of this incorrectly?

I guess it would be "buildings" in the way that 1221 is technically 15 or so buildings. The 10 garage spaces (if thats all they are going to have) is for garage parking in separate buildings, as in the shed like structures along fencelines at the edge of parking lots. I'm assuming everyone else will park in a parking lot if there are no "built-in" garages to the first floor of some of the buildings.

I also underestimated the damage; the article also says that Mulberry Village was demo'd too. That's a huge swath of land for ONLY 282 units.

Its a shame; this really lowers expectations for the rest of Broadway heading north, this area had huge potential and it is nothing but a major disappointment from Broadway all the way back to Tendick St. It pretty much guarantees that nobody will venture off of Broadway, creating a residential island. And before everyone jumps on me, yes, I do think that it is better than what was previously there, but that shouldn't be a reason for us to settle for bad design and more of the same. It doesn't have to be a high-rise, but even if you plop something similar to the Can Plant building with the surrounding ones as well to the existing streets, you would create a mini-destination point for those that are already going to be in the area for the Children's Museum or Kiddie Park. Heck, it might even make the Brackenridge Eagle add an extra stop near Mulberry.

This is one of the downfalls of the city offering money to developers; you lose the potential for an area to the cheapest and quickest short-term gain. I'd rather have this area organically become something great in 5-10 years when it is viable than to have something there for the sake of it just to add a few more residents. Oh well.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by miaht82

I guess it would be "buildings" in the way that 1221 is technically 15 or so buildings. The 10 garage spaces (if thats all they are going to have) is for garage parking in separate buildings, as in the shed like structures along fencelines at the edge of parking lots. I'm assuming everyone else will park in a parking lot if there are no "built-in" garages to the first floor of some of the buildings.

I also underestimated the damage; the article also says that Mulberry Village was demo'd too. That's a huge swath of land for ONLY 282 units.

Its a shame; this really lowers expectations for the rest of Broadway heading north, this area had huge potential and it is nothing but a major disappointment from Broadway all the way back to Tendick St. It pretty much guarantees that nobody will venture off of Broadway, creating a residential island. And before everyone jumps on me, yes, I do think that it is better than what was previously there, but that shouldn't be a reason for us to settle for bad design and more of the same. It doesn't have to be a high-rise, but even if you plop something similar to the Can Plant building with the surrounding ones as well to the existing streets, you would create a mini-destination point for those that are already going to be in the area for the Children's Museum or Kiddie Park. Heck, it might even make the Brackenridge Eagle add an extra stop near Mulberry.

This is one of the downfalls of the city offering money to developers; you lose the potential for an area to the cheapest and quickest short-term gain. I'd rather have this area organically become something great in 5-10 years when it is viable than to have something there for the sake of it just to add a few more residents. Oh well.

You had some really high expectations for that area (where the embrey development is going) didn't you?

It was never going to be a destination. It was set back too far from Broadway and is already isolated in a residential area and on a street that dead ends that it makes no sense to for anything other than a really nice looking apartment building tbh.

[WorldTexas]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

You had some really high expectations for that area (where the embrey development is going) didn't you?

It was never going to be a destination. It's too far from Broadway and is already isolated in a residential area and on a street that dead ends that it makes no sense to for anything other than a really nice looking apartment building tbh.

I would agree with miaht82. The area would never be Pearl, but if you look at the area between Brackenridge Ave and Ira it is mostly apartments and could easily be redeveloped into 6 or 7 apartment buildings from 3-5 floors. It could have built up into a miniature version of West Campus in Austin where midrise apartment blend with fourplexes and single family homes. It would be a midpoint between Pearl and Alamo Heights, helping create some more motion along Broadway.

They could have, and should have, designed the building to better meet the street at the very least. It could have been like the buildings at Pearl or the 1800 with wider sidewalks and some of the residential amenities (gym, lounges) at street level with a few spaces left over for neighborhood retail like a convenience store or a dry cleaner. I think this is a huge waste of potential, but maybe I'm just a big dreamer.

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by miaht82

It doesn't have to be a high-rise, but even if you plop something similar to the Can Plant building with the surrounding ones as well to the existing streets, you would create a mini-destination point

What? Why should an apartment building be a "destination point" for anyone but its residents? How would changing the way the buildings interact with the street make an apartment building into a "destination point"? Are you suggesting it become a mixed-use development with retail, or do you just think that better urban design will draw people to buildings like moths to a flame?

[cole world11]

It looks like any other apartment complex you can find in the city. Sigh

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

What? Why should an apartment building be a "destination point" for anyone but its residents? How would changing the way the buildings interact with the street make an apartment building into a "destination point"? Are you suggesting it become a mixed-use development with retail, or do you just think that better urban design will draw people to buildings like moths to a flame?

Yeah, it makes no sense. No one is walking from Broadway to this apartment building because it interacts with the street. And there's no point of making it a mixed use given its location. Dead end streets, a fenced off military post across the street.

Given the limitations of the location, it's a good design and use.

When I first heard about this, I assumed they were razing the apartments directly behind the SACM site, as we all did. That site had way more potential with regards to being a mixed use or just taller development as it sits on less land.

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

What? Why should an apartment building be a "destination point" for anyone but its residents? How would changing the way the buildings interact with the street make an apartment building into a "destination point"? Are you suggesting it become a mixed-use development with retail, or do you just think that better urban design will draw people to buildings like moths to a flame?

You obviously didn't read everything I read because when I mention the Can Plant apartments, I mentioned the buildings around it, which means that I am definitely suggesting that it be mixed-use.

Why shouldn't it be a destination point? It already is. People go to Planet K, Taco Cabana, Jack in the Box, Good Time Charlies, etc., why should that be all that people are limited too? Every place should be maximized to its fullest potential so that the when the next developments come along on Broadway, the foot traffic would already be there and we wouldn't be looking at sprawl in the city. I'm not suggesting it have a "big-box" or major office tenant, but there's nothing wrong with having a better designed building and space for a couple of small shops to set up if need be.

I don't think that better urban design will draw people to buildings, I just know that better urban design draws people.

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

You had some really high expectations for that area (where the embrey development is going) didn't you?

It was never going to be a destination. It was set back too far from Broadway and is already isolated in a residential area and on a street that dead ends that it makes no sense to for anything other than a really nice looking apartment building tbh.

I have high expectations for EVERY area. The Pearl is set back further from Broadway and it has a highway between it and Broadway; should we just have plopped down suburban style buildings and left it at that? What about Big Tex? It dead-ends completely and is set back further from any street. Should those plans just be scrapped? Tendick runs over from Brackenridge to Eleanor, all hope is not lost when you reach these apartments.

The fact that it is next to an Army post should not set our bar of expectations any lower.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by miaht82

I guess it would be "buildings" in the way that 1221 is technically 15 or so buildings. The 10 garage spaces (if thats all they are going to have) is for garage parking in separate buildings, as in the shed like structures along fencelines at the edge of parking lots. I'm assuming everyone else will park in a parking lot if there are no "built-in" garages to the first floor of some of the buildings.

I also underestimated the damage; the article also says that Mulberry Village was demo'd too. That's a huge swath of land for ONLY 282 units.

Its a shame; this really lowers expectations for the rest of Broadway heading north, this area had huge potential and it is nothing but a major disappointment from Broadway all the way back to Tendick St. It pretty much guarantees that nobody will venture off of Broadway, creating a residential island. And before everyone jumps on me, yes, I do think that it is better than what was previously there, but that shouldn't be a reason for us to settle for bad design and more of the same. It doesn't have to be a high-rise, but even if you plop something similar to the Can Plant building with the surrounding ones as well to the existing streets, you would create a mini-destination point for those that are already going to be in the area for the Children's Museum or Kiddie Park. Heck, it might even make the Brackenridge Eagle add an extra stop near Mulberry.

This is one of the downfalls of the city offering money to developers; you lose the potential for an area to the cheapest and quickest short-term gain. I'd rather have this area organically become something great in 5-10 years when it is viable than to have something there for the sake of it just to add a few more residents. Oh well.

This +1000.

Density is less than it could be, even at that same height (which is leaving money on the table for a developer - lazy). The street interaction based on one rendering (admittedly) is suburban - lazy/cheap. Obviously, it is easier to plunk down a basic facsimile of a suburban complex you've already built.

A good reminder for those of us in the "idealized" world: There are visionaries who happen to be developers. They see potential, build to it, and make change. Then there are these types of developments that remind us that the market is still driving things and that, absent a visionary, the lowest common denominator often triumphs.

[WorldTexas]

This one is definitely going to have a much more suburban feel to it, but I'm still interested to see how it comes together


Looking along Brackenridge toward Broadway:

[Keep-SA-Lame]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...nt-4364691.php

Very disappointing.

[UrbanTrance]

That is pretty disappointing. Wish it could at least have been designed to meet the streets better.

[WorldTexas]

Originally Posted by Alice93

That is pretty disappointing. Wish it could at least have been designed to meet the streets better.

At least there will be street parking?

And this is salt in my wound ...http://www.mywesttexas.com/top_stori...9bb2963f4.html ...

[kornbread]

I'm trying to understand how this ended looking the way it does. From the view in the paper it feels and looks like a typical apartment complex.

HDRC would have had to review this, right? Is Embry trying to tie the look into some of the buildings in Ft. Sam? It reminds me of the Wyndham garden hotel under construction right now, except lighter.

Image from the Express News

[Keep-SA-Lame]

It's not in a RIO or historic district so the HDRC doesn't review it.

[sirkingwilliam]

The two roads that go to this development led to dead ends. Across the street from this thing is a security fence for FSH. I just don't know what kind of development you guys were expecting that would be fiesable. Also, why are people acting like Embrey didn't do their best? Each development they've done seems to take into account the surrounding area and they development within that environment. They do their best to maximize the space they're building on for each development.