Austin | River Park - 4700 Riverside (Formerly Project Catalyst) | Proposed

[AusTxDevelopment]

Defend Our Hoodz protesters arrested at a community meeting:

Seven protesters arrested, public expresses opposition at community meeting for Project Catalyst
https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...ject-catalyst/

[gabetx]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Defend Our Hoodz protesters arrested at a community meeting:

Seven protesters arrested, public expresses opposition at community meeting for Project Catalyst
https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...ject-catalyst/

WTF are they protesting exactly? There are no neighborhoods there. It is nothing but cheap apartments with countless people who are new to Austin and a large transient population.

[verybadgnome]

The city provides a forum for feedback at each meeting where speakers can voices their concerns called citizen comments. I might have some sympathy for their plight if they used that outlet to constructively address the issues, but maybe my expectations are too high. I did not see item D1 so I guess COA deleted that part of the meeting.

[zrx299]

Uneducated people always think they are entitled to someone else's property.

If someone doesn't own, then they have no say in what their landlord does. If that is important to them, then save up and buy-in. Actually invest in the community instead of just paying rent and complaining about things when other people show up who are willing to pay more for something; whether that's land, rent, or a building.

Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Prices don't magically rise on their own.

[austlar1]

The thugs from Defend Our Hoodz, in conjunction with their anarchist supporters, realize that the Catalyst project will further energize the gentrification of inner East Austin along the South Pleasant Valley corridor and also lead to the demolition and/or upscale remodeling of many of the huge and affordable apartment complexes on the hillside south of Riverside in the East Oltorf/Riverside neighborhood. Their concerns are legitimate up to a point, but I think the long term value of upgrading and urbanizing this part of town simply outweighs those concerns. There are ways to address at least some of the long term affordable housing issues as development proceeds. The area north of the Catalyst site in inner East Austin will continue to gentrify regardless of what happens.

[The ATX]

Zoning changes for this project are on the agenda for the Tuesday June 11th Planning Commission meeting. There are several backup files listed, but they all appear to be the same 110 page document. There is a whole bunch of info about this project in it.
There is a rather extensive area that would be zoned for 160' buildings- mainly along Riverside between Wickersham and Willow Creek. The Pleasant Valley and Riverside intersection is in the middle of it all. One of the goals of the project is to have "a seamless connection to Oracle [campus]".

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=320880

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Uneducated people always think they are entitled to someone else's property.

If someone doesn't own, then they have no say in what their landlord does. If that is important to them, then save up and buy-in. Actually invest in the community instead of just paying rent and complaining about things when other people show up who are willing to pay more for something; whether that's land, rent, or a building.

Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Prices don't magically rise on their own.

As always I would say you should look into redlining, blockbusting and FHA treatment of black and Hispanic banking institutions historically. The book 'the color of money' is a fantastic read on the subject. It's not exactly even-handed but it is a well cited book that is primarily fact-driven.

There is a reason the vast majority of poor neighborhoods are rental property and it's not a lack of education but systemic decisions arising out of recontstrion and the new deal that were targeted specifically at black and Hispanic communities (going so far as to not underwrite loans in black neighborhoods (redlining) nor would they underwrite loans that would cause a white neighborhood to become a mixed race neighborhood.

The idea that white home ownership was created solely by the free market and not the federal government underwriting and offloading the risk for loans for white families is one of the primary driver's of 1950s growth of the American middle class.

I worked as a VP of two very large banks on Wall St, and I'm as pro owners rights and development as anyone, but chalking up issues with the lack of wealth in minority communities is ignoring long-standing governmental and private discrimination that is largely responsible for the lack of Generational wealth creation in these communities. I'm not saying I support Save Our Hoodz (I don't) and I am a strong supporter of urbanization but gentrification is a much more complex subject deserving of at least empathy and not accusing groups who have lived in neighborhoods of being uneducated or loafers who have failed to invest in their communities when they historically have largely been prevented from doing just that.

[KevinFromTexas]

I think that area has the potential to be closer to what people should think of as being a 2nd downtown than the Domain is, at least for now. I wonder what the prospects are for realigning some of those streets to straighten out the grid. This area also has the benefit of an HEB grocery store on its edge.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think that area has the potential to be closer to what people should think of as being a 2nd downtown than the Domain is, at least for now. I wonder what the prospects are for realigning some of those streets to straighten out the grid. This area also has the benefit of an HEB grocery store on its edge.

I think airport vicinity will be a blessing and a curse here. It'll likely limit height.

Longhorn damn will be another huge bottleneck.

[The ATX]

The two tallest proposed zoning areas of 120' and 160' are concentrated around this project at Pleasant Valley & Riverside. But they stretch all along riverside from roughly I-35 to SH71. It would be incredible to see this type of density so close to Downtown and in such a large area. IMO this is better for the city than even the Soutshore project.

[freerover]

Defend our Hoodz is going to show up with fire at the development commission tonight.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by freerover

Defend our Hoodz is going to show up with fire at the development commission tonight.

I see a bunch of protestors out front right now. Cops have a barrier set up with their bikes so protestors can’t go inside.

[The ATX]

This was a little more contentious than most Planning Commission meeting items. But the commission approved all five items put forth by the developer 7-4. But it was under the condition that more info concerning several unanswered questions be provided to CC by city departments before the CC hears this zoning change request in August.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The two tallest proposed zoning areas of 120' and 160' are concentrated around this project at Pleasant Valley & Riverside. But they stretch all along riverside from roughly I-35 to SH71. It would be incredible to see this type of density so close to Downtown and in such a large area. IMO this is better for the city than even the Soutshore project.

It will be like Austin's version of Wilshire Boulevard, which is interesting because I've always envisioned Riverside as becoming Wilshire-esq even back in the 90s. Course back then I thought it was wistful thinking but maybe not so wishful thinking now. Obviously won't be on the same level but it's still a significant step for the city.

[mumu]

Originally Posted by The ATX

This was a little more contentious than most Planning Commission meeting items. But the commission approved all five items put forth by the developer 7-4. But it was under the condition that more info concerning several unanswered questions be provided to CC by city departments before the CC hears this zoning change request in August.

Edit: I read in other sources (ABJ) that the 160 feet was indeed approved for all tracts, for all 97 acres, over the objections of city staff.

What actually passed ?

I have a hard time following the paperwork. I'm particularly interested in just how much land of the ~97 acres is in fact zoned for 120 or 160 feet, as approved 7-4.

The developer wants all 5 tracts to be rezoned for 160 feet (page 27 of 110.)

However the city planning staff (?) map shows most of the tracts remaining at 65 feet with no bonus height, except close to Riverside Dr. (page 23 of 110.)

[427MM]

Originally Posted by mumu

Edit: I read in other sources (ABJ) that the 160 feet was indeed approved for all tracts, for all 97 acres, over the objections of city staff.

What actually passed ?

I have a hard time following the paperwork. I'm particularly interested in just how much land of the ~97 acres is in fact zoned for 120 or 160 feet, as approved 7-4.

The developer wants all 5 tracts to be rezoned for 160 feet (page 27 of 110.)

However the city planning staff (?) map shows most of the tracts remaining at 65 feet with no bonus height, except close to Riverside Dr. (page 23 of 110.)

PC recommended that all tracts go to 160' (max height noticed) and that staff look into five requests the local contact team want such as vacation of old ROW on parkland, no storm water in the creek and more bike/ped connectivity. Yes, I believe had PC had the ability to provide more height and allow for the utilization of all the density bonuses (something every additional foot of height would have provided) that they would have done so.

[KevinFromTexas]

The American-Statesman has an article on the redevelopment of the Ballpark North at 4600 Elmont Drive.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...ed-use-project

[427MM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The American-Statesman has an article on the redevelopment of the Ballpark North at 4600 Elmont Drive.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...ed-use-project

Such a big deal for transit and housing in the area. Hope Council is able to pass this without watering it down.

[freerover]

Being discussed by council now.

[freerover]

It's being passed on 1st reading only by council. It'll be back in 2 weeks for final approval. I was not at all surprised to hear that 90% of ballpark residents turnover by 2 years.