Three Towers; 1,000+ homes; Downtown Rainey District

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

WOW! LOL!
What exactly is your end game? What do you do?
Why would you make such an insulting comment?
You think a city should not bargain with developers to the benefit of
the city and citizens?

Except that's not what the neighborhood NIMBYs are proposing.

They want a total ban on everything over 15:1 for an undetermined amount of time.


Which will lead directly to the properties being developed as such, without any of those community benefits.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by freerover

I don't think you understand how property ownership works.

I mean, the question becomes what is the relative value of additional density rights?

Much like NYC (or anywhere) the first 5-6 floors above retail are not exactly desirable living conditions and will absolutely lead to high-turnover renters at market-rate or hard to flip condos. They will be loud and buyers will overlook that because "the location" but then will become extremely annoyed. They won't have much of a view being so low down and street noise will be an issue.

As Austin gets bigger and denser and you can command more money for high-floor buildings it becomes very very "worth it" to turn these lower down floors into sub-market rate housing so that you can build up and get higher floors at even higher prices. It's one of the useful tools to tackle low-income housing and the city should use it.

I mean, these developers are free to build as-of-right and its why the tone of the NA letter isn't interesting to me. It's very NIMBY kick the ladder out no more development. But the city *does* have needs to tackle and should use additional FAR and density bonus approvals to get them.

And as time goes on, what the city can ask for it only going to go up. We are in one of the hottest real estate markets in the country and as long as companies continue to relocate here housing prices will go up and the city should get more from developers. The fact that we have a serious proposal for the tallest building in Texas and one of the tallest residential buildings on Earth tells us where the market value is.

That said, the NA is *not* arguing for this. They are arguing that nothing should be built and they can GTFO with that. I'd rather have denser buildings than non-denser buildings. I would prefer super-dense buildings with low-income housing.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Millions of dollars for affordable housing (plus that 5%) isn't "giving away the city".

Street level retail and activation isn't "giving away the city".

Great Streets sidewalks and treatments aren't "giving away the city".

All of that goes away under existing entitlements.

All of which came by the city being an advocate.
And they are not "entitlements".... they are what make a city work.
Whats is your real point?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

SO how many of you experts on urbanism actually have invested in downtown Austin... live here... and experience the real time issues that come with lack of planning, transportation, homelessness, crowds, demonstrations, street closures. etc. ? Speaking of the greater good... if the first thing you say is its not affordable , then you should be the first to ask for affordable housing to be built at a greater than 5% rate, which is what is proposed on the new housing on Rainey. If you don't force most developers to benefit the city they profit from, they will only benefit themselves.

All great points. Been living city center since the last century in some of the biggest cities in the world. guess what, they are nice, but they have problems. We should avoid those problems.

Been living in downtown Austin for almost 2 decades. Been living on Rainey since it used to be scary to walk down the street after 10pm. Been waiting for that train to show up for 2 decades now. probably be another two decades. been waiting for a side walk the whole time too. been waiting for a street w/o potholes that whole time too. I used to get hassled by the cops for walking in the park after 10, now they let people camp there permanently. someone needs to be in charge of trash pickup for some of these tents!

I don't like these buildings w/o parking spots. Like it or not, THIS metro is car centric. even if the owner/tenant doesnt have a car, their friends do, and then they take up parking spots. the rich ones who still keep a car just buy a parking spot nearby. Then all the people who cant afford to live downtown but work downtown cant find a parking spot. the ladies like a parking spot close to their work - especially with our new big city problems you mentioned. have you seen all the cars circling and vulturing for a parking spot on Rainey. There are more now than ever. even with all of our fabulous new means of transportation, including all those scooters blocking the sidewalks - if that is what you want to call them!

[migol24]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I wish I knew what each person "gets" from their posts. Who is interested in Austin? Who is just wanting big toys? Who is just trolling? Three is so much baggage. Me: I'm a long time (happy to be in crowds) downtown high-rise resident who wants a balance in urban design. I I want to find a way to grow and still Maintain a unique sense of place. For me: Generic tall buildings packed in anywhere will just be "anywhere". No vibe, no character no history all = loss of identity. I'm not loving how often I see people here just wanting to give developers a pass just to get a building built. Believe me, there will be the next developer in line who will want to give back as much to the city as they get. Tall for tall sake does not make for great neighborhoods to live in. People like to throw NYC up a lot. Well, when you are there where are you going to play and eat? The neighborhoods. In Midtown ya walk over to Hells Kitchen . Even in the financial district, where do I head? Stone street. Etc. Well, we have that mix in Rainey at this point. Where do you stop before all you have is a generic collection of talls with people trying to get to the Eastside to escape? I beg all you "ooooh it's so tall" types to really dig in and walk the area and see what the experience is like before you advocate for more pretty things you only look at from a distance.. OK... attack away!

I do agree with you in some sense. A lot of these towers are all very exclusive to the people who live there and not at all open to the rest of the neighborhood. Even that tower that holds the Tipsy Alchemist is so pretentious and exclusive that I feel a lot of towers are following suit. No sense of ever seeing Mom and Pop shops opening up. Something that feels truly original around downtown.

But people seem to be ok for another Kung Fu Saloon to open up rather than seeing local venues opening up.

Downtown is weird in general. I feel it's nothing like the real Austin you find in the neighborhoods.

[East7thStreet]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I wish I knew what each person "gets" from their posts. Who is interested in Austin? Who is just wanting big toys? Who is just trolling? Three is so much baggage. Me: I'm a long time (happy to be in crowds) downtown high-rise resident who wants a balance in urban design. I I want to find a way to grow and still Maintain a unique sense of place. For me: Generic tall buildings packed in anywhere will just be "anywhere". No vibe, no character no history all = loss of identity. I'm not loving how often I see people here just wanting to give developers a pass just to get a building built. Believe me, there will be the next developer in line who will want to give back as much to the city as they get. Tall for tall sake does not make for great neighborhoods to live in. People like to throw NYC up a lot. Well, when you are there where are you going to play and eat? The neighborhoods. In Midtown ya walk over to Hells Kitchen . Even in the financial district, where do I head? Stone street. Etc. Well, we have that mix in Rainey at this point. Where do you stop before all you have is a generic collection of talls with people trying to get to the Eastside to escape? I beg all you "ooooh it's so tall" types to really dig in and walk the area and see what the experience is like before you advocate for more pretty things you only look at from a distance.. OK... attack away!

I agree with pretty much all of this....I've been in Austin since 1976 and I miss non pretentious places like the Tamale House, Huts, Les Amis etc.....but after living for a bit in the Bay Area I realized how much of Austin's built environment is complete trash. That's why I'm mostly for all this new development. The new infrastructure and density is very much needed....and a lot of it does include ground floor retail (especially compared to other sunbelt cities). I do, however, wish the ground floor stuff was filled with more affordable/local retail....not sure how anyone can regulate that? I feel like this is a common sentiment on this website....so not sure there is too much disagreement....

Anyways...I've enjoyed all your writing over the years! Cheers!

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by migol24

I do agree with you in some sense. A lot of these towers are all very exclusive to the people who live there and not at all open to the rest of the neighborhood. Even that tower that holds the Tipsy Alchemist is so pretentious and exclusive that I feel a lot of towers are following suit. No sense of ever seeing Mom and Pop shops opening up. Something that feels truly original around downtown.

But people seem to be ok for another Kung Fu Saloon to open up rather than seeing local venues opening up.

Downtown is weird in general. I feel it's nothing like the real Austin you find in the neighborhoods.

I think most here get what you're saying. I'd prefer that locally based/owned businesses take up residence in these retail spots too.
FYI though, Kung Fu Saloon is a local Austin brand. It's not an import.

[ohhey]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Dude: I know.
Thanks for proving my point. We probably could have worked together on this.

I completely agree with you. Many of the skyscraper enthusiasts you'll find on this board are just as crazy as the NIMBYs. The histrionics is so overkill.

[The ATX]

River St. Residences - alley vacation moved to 4/8 & zoning change approved on 1st reading

9092 Rainey - zoning change approved on 1st reading

East Tower (84 East) - zoning change approved on 2nd reading

Block 150 - zoning change moved to 5/8


Stay tuned...

[migol24]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I think most here get what you're saying. I'd prefer that locally based/owned businesses take up residence in these retail spots too.
FYI though, Kung Fu Saloon is a local Austin brand. It's not an import.

Much like Whole Foods is a local joint. I get what you're saying but it doesn't hit quite home the way Draught House, or Work Horse, does. They're pretty much brands that you can see in other places like Dallas, or Houston. It doesn't speak local to people in Austin.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by The ATX

River St. Residences - alley vacation moved to 4/8 & zoning change approved on 1st reading

9092 Rainey - zoning change approved on 1st reading

East Tower (84 East) - zoning change approved on 2nd reading

Block 150 - zoning change moved to 5/8


Stay tuned...

Wooohooo!!

Urbanism wins again.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Wooohooo!!

Urbanism wins again.

A win would have been passing for 3 readings. Still a lot that could go wrong the next two times. But definitely better than failing.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by JAM

I don't like these buildings w/o parking spots. Like it or not, THIS metro is car centric.

Strongly disagree with you here. We know how much we’re changing the planet and the largest contributors to these changes and we have to be able to live more sustainably. My mortgage includes a $30k parking space that I don’t use. The majority of my friends who come into town do not bring their own vehicle and if they do they are on their own as I’m not going to worry about their carbon machine. Forcing each and every home to have a car is how we remain a car centric place, evolving into something better is how we give the future a chance.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Strongly disagree with you here. We know how much we’re changing the planet and the largest contributors to these changes and we have to be able to live more sustainably. My mortgage includes a $30k parking space that I don’t use. The majority of my friends who come into town do not bring their own vehicle and if they do they are on their own as I’m not going to worry about their carbon machine. Forcing each and every home to have a car is how we remain a car centric place, evolving into something better is how we give the future a chance.

We need to move the city away from being as car centric as it is. I have concerns about parking availability downtown, but I also think the abundance of parking downtown is causing people to not take mass transit because of convenience.

I *do* think Austin is less than a decade away from the central part of the city being good enough to not need automobiles. If you work *and* live along the route of the new light-rail lines I think you could achieve an automobile-less life and we would see an uptick in services like Car2Go for weekend trips.

Its a chicken and the egg problem for sure, and I think Austin is going to hit a density peak in the next 10 years that will get us there in parts of the city.

[We vs us]

I'm glad these three are moving forward; density is for sure one of the ways we fight the housing crunch in Austin. And FWIW, I look forward to the Travises and the supertall getting approved as well.

That said: the city's got to get moving on a plan for Rainey. While the combustion engine may or may not be long for the civilized world, personal vehicles surely are here to stay. It's folly to ignore them as part of a balanced planning approach. We can argue about the mix -- what to emphasize, what to incentivize -- but neglecting the dominant mode altogether is just going to end in tears.

I'm pretty confident it can be done in ways that don't suck, we've just got to get to it.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I'm glad these three are moving forward; density is for sure one of the ways we fight the housing crunch in Austin. And FWIW, I look forward to the Travises and the supertall getting approved as well.

That said: the city's got to get moving on a plan for Rainey. While the combustion engine may or may not be long for the civilized world, personal vehicles surely are here to stay. It's folly to ignore them as part of a balanced planning approach. We can argue about the mix -- what to emphasize, what to incentivize -- but neglecting the dominant mode altogether is just going to end in tears.

I'm pretty confident it can be done in ways that don't suck, we've just got to get to it.

I think an easy fix is at least Thursday-Saturday to limit non-local cars from entering Rainey. Create a couple of rideshare drop-off points and call it a day. I also think geoblocking scooters from operating in entertainment districts that are heavily pedestrian at night seems a no brainer. They already did this at the lake, no reason they can't do it in Rainey as well.

In general Austin needs to come up with ride-share and scooter solutions long-term. They are useful and have their place but we really need to reconsider if its safe on the roadways and for pedestrians to basically allow chaos when it comes to these services.

It seems that downtown should have a handful of drop-off points (at least on weekends) that ride shares are allowed to operate in and you need to stumble your drunk self to one of those at the end of the evening.

I also think Scooters can't operate on congested sidewalks (SoCo at night, 6th, Rainey, East 6th). I mean, other larger cities have already tackled these issues, we should just copy them.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I'm glad these three are moving forward; density is for sure one of the ways we fight the housing crunch in Austin. And FWIW, I look forward to the Travises and the supertall getting approved as well.

That said: the city's got to get moving on a plan for Rainey. While the combustion engine may or may not be long for the civilized world, personal vehicles surely are here to stay. It's folly to ignore them as part of a balanced planning approach. We can argue about the mix -- what to emphasize, what to incentivize -- but neglecting the dominant mode altogether is just going to end in tears.

I'm pretty confident it can be done in ways that don't suck, we've just got to get to it.

Rainey is such a cramped little area. I actually don't believe it can be retrofitted to be more car compatible. And I'm not even sure that it should. Area residents should probably learn to live without their car as much as possible, just like they do in other big urban centers.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Rainey is such a cramped little area. I actually don't believe it can be retrofitted to be more car compatible.

You may be right, but IMO they're going to have to try. Completely aside from the residents, there's enough office/hotel/entertainment in the pipeline that vehicular traffic to the neighborhood is going to continue to tick up no matter what happens. The streets are so tight there already that it won't take much to make them impassable.

Also, hey, years of major construction traffic! There'll come a point in 2022 or 2023 when everything's firing on all cylinders and no matter what you're driving it'll be impossible to move on Rainey. Walking or nothing!

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Rainey is such a cramped little area. I actually don't believe it can be retrofitted to be more car compatible. And I'm not even sure that it should. Area residents should probably learn to live without their car as much as possible, just like they do in other big urban centers.

For many of the residential buildings on Rainey (IMHO, as a Rainey resident), I don't think it needs to be much more favorable to cars. Rather, I think the majority of congestion comes from Uber/Lyfts coming and going from the bars, and (when more people are travelling), busses coming in and out of the Van Zandt.

That said, I think the simplest solution would be:

1. Remove the curbside parallel parking along the I-35 Frontage road and East avenue, and replace it with a dedicated drop-off zone for ridesharing. Or at least, have it act as that during designated times throughout the week (e.g., 6 PM to 2 AM).

2. Making the roads nicer (e.g., cleanly paved, designated lanes);

3. Expanding the sidewalks along Red River and Driskill (which as of now, don't exist on half of the street).

Restricting rideshares to there would keep them moving along that around without having to stop for pedestrian traffic, stop signs, etc., and it would clear up Rainey and the other small streets quite a bit for local traffic. Expanding sidewalks would give pedestrians a better place to walk to the bars.

Unless the residential population of Rainey increases drastically, I don't see any more need that that. On any non-bar time, such as 9 AM on a Tuesday, etc., there really isn't much congestion in the area compared to most of downtown.

[freerover]

Worth nothing that the 35 project will improve access in and out of Rainey from Holly. The last proposal grade separated the frontage rd from holly street and added a South to North U-Turn. That would remove the double intersections at Holly an East and 35.