AUSTIN | Waterloo Park Central (HealthSouth site) | 37 Floors x2 | Cancelled

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Honestly I like those "social constraints" I see nothing wrong with the city pushing for more public uses because after all, we the public should be able to have access and more interconnectivity to tie into the surrounding area and we desperately need affordable housing too. Developers shouldn't have cart blanch full control when this development will shape the entire northeast quadrant of DT Austin.

The city should weigh in the miss opportunity of dragging their feet. Each day/month/years in some cases, that they force developers to pay more, do more, they get less housing on the ground in a timely manner. This pushes prices up. Austin is at the beginning of a crisis...we need WAY more housing, of all types....and it's not coming in any way to match the demand in over the next 3-5 years.

It's pure politics from people who are NOT urban planners, don't believe in supply and demand....and who think the government solves problems. Get out of the way, let the builders build....and get on with it.

That said, if the city owns the property, I completely AGREE the city should fight for the best use in their eyes....that includes affordable housing. My problem is when they butt their noses in private deals and endless delays.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If the council wanted more than x, y, z they should have asked for it originally.

Yep.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who said anything about cart blanche?

The city put out an RFP asking for X, Y, and Z.

The developer came back with X, Y, Z _plus_ a public park/viewing platform.

If the council wanted more than x, y, z they should have asked for it originally.

In the world of sales, that would be considered bait-and-switch. Adding to the original x y z demands after the interested party acts in good faith and is usually vested in time and money is a age old practice of leveraging maximum benefits to the beneficiary. In sales you would want to top down sell, here you do the opposite because...you can. They, the City have all the leverage.
I think there's a morality issue at play, sometimes, but should not be surprising considering there are thousands of books and seminars that teach how to achieve maximum results through deception, and sales tactics. The only way to defeat said tactics is to limit any kind of investments and to always appear that you are ready to walk away from the deal. Pretty sure to be part of the decision making board, those kind of books and seminars are pre-requisites. I do have a feeling that developers are aware that there will be a plethora of "Hidden Charges" (demands), but have little choice but to keep giving into them if they want to move forward. Part of the process game.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

[B][URL="https://archive.is/rac08"]

Rendering from the vantage point of an elevated park facing the Texas Capitol that Aspen Heights Partners has proposed for city-owned land at 1215 Red River St.

River views are cool and all... but the view this thing will have of the Capitol to the west and the growing skyline to the south are gonna be some of the best new vantages in the city.

[ATXboom]

The city should have known its ask before major companies invested so much time to put proposals together. The city is moving goal posts after the game is over... Not the brightest bunch. I'd be pissed if I'm one of the submitting organizations.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

The city should have known its ask before major companies invested so much time to put proposals together. The city is moving goal posts after the game is over... Not the brightest bunch. I'd be pissed if I'm one of the submitting organizations.

I became fed up with Austin City government during the MLS stadium location process. But Adler's open letter to Amazon during the HQ2 frenzy was probably the beginning of my dislike for it.

[Urbannizer]

1/5

[drummer]

Now is the time to do a zombie apocalypse movie in that building.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

Now is the time to do a zombie apocalypse movie in that building.

That already happened a couple seasons ago on Fear the Walking Dead.

[We vs us]

It's weird. That building's been half-torn down for a couple of months now. Why the pause?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

That already happened a couple seasons ago on Fear the Walking Dead.

That's right! I don't watch much TV but I recall that being mentioned now.

[The ATX]

The City Council moved forward on the HealthSouth site project:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Austin City Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to give city staff the green light to negotiate an agreement with Aspen Heights Partners to redevelop tracts of city-owned land northeast of downtown, with the goal of building mixed-use properties with a focus on affordable housing.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...near-downtown/

[drummer]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The City Council moved forward on the HealthSouth site project:



https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...near-downtown/

This is good news. I keep forgetting about this one.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

This is good news. I keep forgetting about this one.

We'll see if its good news or not.

I haven't seen posted yet in what form Tovo's amendments got added.

"giving staff the green light to negotiate with Aspen" may be meaningless. If Aspen proposed an office/condo project (they did) and Tovo directed staff to minimize officespace and disallow any market rate condos (her amendments), Aspen very likely may just walk.

In the mean time we waste their time and money, we waste taxpayer dollars and staff time, and we delay the affordable housing component on Aspen's actual proposal.

[AusTxDevelopment]

From the Austin Monitor article titled "Tovo crafts complex motion for HealthSouth talks" this is the list of changes that the Council will request.

A chief concern expressed by Tovo as well as other Council members is the need to make the project a prime example of affordable housing. The motion she is proposing would direct the city manager to make sure that affordable housing is the site’s “significant and central use.”

In addition, Tovo’s motion would require “a significant shift from one-bedroom and studio homes to two- and three-bedroom homes to align with” recommendations from a 2008 task force on families with children.

Any city profits above a certain internal rate of return once costs are covered “shall be used for the creation of Permanent Supportive Housing or vouchers and services for individuals experiencing homelessness,” according to the motion.

In addition, Tovo is seeking “on-site high-quality affordable child care” and a reduction in office space “as much as financially feasible.” She is asking that negotiators provide for communal learning spaces, such as computer labs, that are suitable for children.

Tovo is also seeking to ensure that commercial tenants will include a significant number of independent local merchants, without putting a number on the requirement.

Tovo is asking that any park or green space be fully accessible to the public and feature clear signage in both English and Spanish. She also wants to make sure that the public has access to any viewing deck built as part of the development.

Other amenities, such as a swimming pool, should also be free and open to the public without charge, Tovo says. In addition, she requests that costs for maintaining the park and any aquatic facility not be the city’s responsibility.

The motion includes requirements for acceptance of housing choice vouchers or other rental subsidies and sets maximum rents based on a household income at 60 percent median family income or below.

The final item on Tovo’s list of requests for the agreement is that the building achieve LEED Gold or 4-Star Green Building standards.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...thsouth-talks/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

From the Austin Monitor article titled "Tovo crafts complex motion for HealthSouth talks" this is the list of changes that the Council will request.



https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...thsouth-talks/

Council website is probably a better source.

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=353962

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...210127-reg.htm

I'm particularly concerned with
"Based on current trends and projections, reduce the amount of office space as much as
financially feasible. "

Aspen responded to the RFP with a mixed use office tower, and Tovo wants to minimize it.

Also " If in the course of
negotiations Aspen Heights articulates substantial concerns about any of the below community
benefits, the City Manager shall return to Council prepared to share that information and to seek
further direction from Council. "

Which given that Aspen will likely have concerns about most of Tovo's wish list, may mean the city manager has to return to council every week.


and " include a provision that
allows for profit-sharing for the City beyond a certain internal rate of return once costs
are covered. "

So Aspen has to cover the downside and risk, and all the upside profits go to the city.

[Riverranchdrone]

[Riverranchdrone]

[Echostatic]

Dorsey looks stellar.

[corvairkeith]

From this afternoon.