AUSTIN | The Grove Mixed Use | U/C [Archive]

KevinFromTexas

Apr 3, 2015, 4:16 AM

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/austin-developer-plans-500-million-project-on-bull/nkmBN/?ecmp=statesman_social_facebook_2014_sfp#e8681583.3844119.735690

Austin developer plans $500 million project on Bull Creek land
Updated: 7:18 p.m. Thursday, April 2, 2015 | Posted: 7:01 p.m. Thursday, April 2, 2015

By Gary Dinges and Shonda Novak - American-Statesman Staff

Newly unveiled plans for 75 prime acres along Bull Creek in Central Austin call for a $500 million project that includes single-family homes, apartments, shops, restaurants, office space and a 12-acre park.

The proposed development — to be called The Grove at Shoal Creek — at Bull Creek Road and West 45th Street is being planned by Austin-based MileStone Community Builders. The project could cost about $500 million and take five to seven years to complete, said Garrett Martin, president and CEO of MileStone, Austin’s largest locally owned homebuilder.

Newly unveiled plans for 75 prime acres along Bull Creek in Central Austin call for a $500 million project that includes single-family homes, apartments, shops, restaurants, office space and a 12-acre park.

The proposed development — to be called The Grove at Shoal Creek — at Bull Creek Road and West 45th Street is being planned by Austin-based MileStone Community Builders. The project could cost about $500 million and take five to seven years to complete, said Garrett Martin, president and CEO of MileStone, Austin’s largest locally owned homebuilder.

Digatisdi

Apr 3, 2015, 4:42 AM

Hmmm... I'm not sure what to think, I would've preferred more mixed-use, or at least elimination of what appears to be surface parking in the northwest corner, that chunk for more mixed-use or retail, but other than that I feel like this will overall be a good addition

airwx

Apr 3, 2015, 5:08 AM

I wish there were a way to add a bike/pedestrian bridge across Shoal Creek and connect to Shoal Creek Blvd, but overall it looks better than I was expecting.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 3, 2015, 5:09 AM

Yeah, I'd rather any surface parking be below grade. I'm also wondering how long it'll be before Austin sees any considerably tall buildings outside of downtown that aren't anything more than suburban office parks.

lzppjb

Apr 3, 2015, 5:25 AM

I saw this earlier tonight. A co-worker lives in Allandale. He said his wife is going to flip out over it. haha

austlar1

Apr 3, 2015, 6:00 AM

I have a friend who works for this developer. He said that due to neighborhood opposition it was not possible to plan for anything terribly dense or vertical on this amazing parcel of land. I guess he knew what he was talking about here. I hate the fact that the street layout does not really connect with any of the surrounding area. It could almost be a gated community. Note how the proposed park is tucked way in the back no doubt to discourage use by people who don't live in the development.

Digatisdi

Apr 3, 2015, 6:02 AM

I wish there were a way to add a bike/pedestrian bridge across Shoal Creek and connect to Shoal Creek Blvd, but overall it looks better than I was expecting.

I agree on both points. I'm sure we'd have to fight the State for that one, if the Archives Commission building still retains rights to the land on the opposite shore. Eventually I'd like to see something done where the Archives Commission building is torn down and redeveloped into mixed-use housing with a road or pedestrian path closer to the creek because it'd definitely make ped/bike bridges easier to put in.

verybadgnome

Apr 3, 2015, 1:34 PM

This is starting to look like a wasted opportunity. The market demand in Austin is for multi-family by a 3 to 1 ratio versus single family but this plan seems to be ignoring that. There are too many unsubstantiated claims by those who oppose this. They ignore the simple fact that not building density in the core will actually push people farther out and make the overall situation worse.

ivanwolf

Apr 3, 2015, 2:27 PM

_Matt

Apr 3, 2015, 4:41 PM

What a shameful, pathetic use of central Austin land. No density. No context of the surrounding city, as Kevin said. Nothing to make the city greater for it.

Instead we get a master planned community devoid of interconnection. This is a suburb development (MileStone is a suburban developer, see map below). The city planners really need to get their act together as more central parcels like this become available.

http://i.imgur.com/PviIZlBl.png

I suppose one good thing is that density is low so that the exclusion of public transportation connectivity won't impact the connecting streets as it could with dense, vertical development. Maybe they will have roaming golf carts to give the occupants located on the far end a ride to the community amenities.

Is it just me, or do "master planned communities" and "responsible urban development" seem to be in conflict.

verybadgnome

Apr 3, 2015, 5:00 PM

This parcel should be only residential. Not every new development has to have retail. Having the mix of Apt, Townhouse, and SFR is ok. If I lived near it I'd fight to keep the retail and parking garages away. Just some nice homes with lots of trees, minimize the surface parking.

What is your justification for saying it only should be residential? If the local market via a strong customer base supports retail why should it be precluded?

Exclusionary zoning, with the exception for industrial land uses, creates more problems than it solves.

A side benefit to this project will be that it makes Mueller look like redevelopment utopia.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 3, 2015, 8:54 PM

This project had me thinking of an article someone posted in the City Discussions section of the forum a few days ago. You can read it here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=216440

I can't remember where I read it, but I read something else that was talking about developers in New York requesting they be allowed to remove parking requirements for their projects, and residents there were complaining and opposing that idea. Who needs a car in New York? They said the problem then was developers had to build parking garages into their projects, which added to the cost of the housing prices for the project. Digging is always timely and costly. Also, if they have height restrictions to contend with it means any added height to the building in the form of an above ground parking garage means less building for residential units, which also drives up the cost of the units since there's less of them in the building to spread the cost around. The third problem to this is that adding all those parking spaces in the garage for all those cars means more traffic, and in a place like New York that can be pure hell because of the density.

Granted, Austin is no New York, but then again Austin's bigger now than New York was in 1850 by nearly 200,000 people. Why wait?

mars-man

Apr 3, 2015, 9:11 PM

I suppose one good thing is that density is low so that the exclusion of public transportation connectivity won't impact the connecting streets as it could with dense, vertical development.

This project as presented has its pros and cons, and I enjoy a good kvetch as much as anyone, but let's keep to the facts. Capital Metro's Bull Creek bus (No. 19) goes right alongside this tract on its way to/from downtown and Anderson/Northcross, with many transfer points along the route. Transit connectivity is not an issue.

jngreenlee

Apr 3, 2015, 9:54 PM

I read something else that was talking about developers in New York requesting they be allowed to remove parking requirements for their projects,

This?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6973990&postcount=311

KevinFromTexas

Apr 3, 2015, 10:00 PM

Yes! Cool, thanks for posting that here.

lzppjb

Apr 3, 2015, 10:18 PM

I think we need single family homes in the core, as well as multifamily and townhomes. If you want to attract the people who choose to live in the burbs, you need to offer what they want, which is a detached house with a bit of yard.

I think we are a big enough city, physically, to offer everything.

Tech House

Apr 4, 2015, 4:08 AM

I think we need single family homes in the core

Depending on what you mean by the core, most of Austin is single family homes. Downtown is flanked on all sides by such neighborhoods, and it's putting a severe constraint on urban growth because nobody wants their neighborhood re-zoned for greater density.We don't need another acre within the city of Austin to be developed with detached SFDs, we need to push for much greater density lest the next 3 million residents end up commuting 40 miles to and from work.

lzppjb

Apr 4, 2015, 4:29 AM

It's an interesting battle. I just don't know many families that want to live in an apartment where rent is higher than a mortgage.

Tech House

Apr 4, 2015, 5:05 AM

I'm a single man who enjoys renting a room in a SFD, so I'm part of the problem. Being able to park by the door to carry stuff in and out, not hear neighbors through the walls, floor, and ceiling, and walk out the back door to a private yard with a lawn, what's not to like? It just isn't feasible to jam 5 million people into a city and have a lot of this type of space near the center of the city, although Austin looks poised to do just that. It will be interesting.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 4, 2015, 5:58 AM

One problem I see to dense development in the heart of Austin is the dense tree canopy we have. And of course I'd be against cutting down/moving these trees for development. I'm not talking about young trees the squirrels planted along fences and power lines, I'm talking about 200 to 500 year old Oaks with huge canopies that would make it nearly impossible to build around. Those trees are also just simply too massive to try to move. A few years ago when my grandmother was in declining health and my aunt was living with her and looking after things, she actually suggested my brother and I along with our cousins dig up and move the Oak tree in the backyard near the house because she was worried it was damaging the patio. I kind of gave her a look like "you're nuts" - because this tree is about 400 years old. I'm sure it's heritage tree size. It's too big for me to wrap my arms around and has a 60 foot canopy. I'm pretty sure it weighs as much as the house does. That lot only has three Oak trees on it and two much smaller Elm tree "clusters" - but they create a canopy so thick you can't see the a square inch of the roof of the house in Google Earth. Our yard is similar with 5 Oaks, one of which we had listed as a heritage tree, because my idiot uncle kept cutting the limb back that was over the storage shed in the backyard. He did that 10 years ago, and that limb hasn't really grown much since then. Oak trees take an incredibly long time to grow. I'm sure all of the trees on our lot are at least 200 to 300 years old.

lzppjb

Apr 4, 2015, 6:08 AM

Austin's canopy is a huge plus. I agree that it should be protected as much as possible.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 4, 2015, 6:26 AM

Seriously, I'm having to cut down what is admittedly a trash tree. It's a "Texas Wax Leaf Tree" - which is actually a Japanese native tree that took hold here and became rampant. They do make awesome shade trees, but I'm having to cut it down because I found out they're poisonous (potentially lethal) to dogs. So it has to go. But I'm really going to miss the shade. It sucks, too, because our neighbor lost their 60 foot sycamore to the drought a few years ago, so there's way more sun. We're thinking of replacing the tree with either a crepe myrtle or red bud. That side of the yard is very sunny, while the other side is very shade because of the Oaks.

That shade is appreciated in the warm months because it cools the air all around us. My sister's house in Del Valle has no trees, and it's like picnicking in hell in the summertime outside on the patio.

IluvATX

Apr 4, 2015, 2:33 PM

38th street? This is more metro.

Tech House

Apr 4, 2015, 4:46 PM

One problem I see to dense development in the heart of Austin is the dense tree canopy we have. And of course I'd be against cutting down/moving these trees for development.

100% agree. I'm not suggesting that Tarrytown be replaced by Mueller West or a new Domain, but whenever land can be developed intensively it should be. Granny units need to be more readily accepted. Small apartments and townhomes can be built twixt trees without involving some remote REIT that doesn't care about Austin and only wants to build generic monoliths that maximize profit. So I'm dreaming, I know it ain't gonna go like this, but I do agree that Austin's canopy is one of its greatest assets. Whenever I'm in other cities, I almost always notice how few trees they have. We're blessed with an abundance of them.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 4, 2015, 9:07 PM

38th street? This is more metro.

I believe we should treat this development like we did with Highland Mall, Mueller and the Domain. They're too big a project to dump into the metro development thread or the update thread.

verybadgnome

Apr 5, 2015, 7:16 PM

I just did a redfin query of SF homes in that area built within the last ten years and sold within the last year and the average price was $609k, or about twice the Austin median sold price. This just shows that the price of land is so high that it makes more economic sense to build denser with more attached homes, condos and apartments.

People have to remember that there is an incredible amount of space devoted to uses other than housing that diminish the supply of good available land in the core and drive up prices. All the parks, golf courses, cemeteries, floodplains, steep slopes, roads, sidewalks, brownfields, non-mixed use commercial, easements, pipelines, preserves, etc. are all precluded and then most of the remainder is SF neighborhoods. Then the SF neighborhoods will fight tooth and nail to prevent any MF from coming in ostensibly fearing traffic and noise, but really wanting to prevent "demographic change." The result is very low density - on a scale which takes in more than the Sunbelt states - which makes for bad transit and less housing options near workplaces.

Also in regards to that 3:1 ratio of MF to SF I quoted earlier, that is in spite of existing zoning and neighborhood groups stacked against it. If there was a truly free market in real estate development that ratio would be even higher. And if it was not harder to get a condo loan versus a SF home loan it would be higher still.

_Matt

Apr 6, 2015, 9:23 PM

This project as presented has its pros and cons, and I enjoy a good kvetch as much as anyone, but let's keep to the facts. Capital Metro's Bull Creek bus (No. 19) goes right alongside this tract on its way to/from downtown and Anderson/Northcross, with many transfer points along the route. Transit connectivity is not an issue.

That is a good point, thanks for point out that route!

_Matt

Apr 6, 2015, 10:14 PM

drummer

Apr 6, 2015, 11:00 PM

I realize you guys are speaking more generally about the canopy, but I don't know how applicable it is to this site. It appears to have been clear-cut at some point in the past, a very unfortunate treatment of the land. I used to help my grandfather clear land at his cattle ranch. We would take down cedar trees and destroy them like weeds. Oaks in the pasture were never touched and sometimes even cleaned up.

The adjacent neighborhoods have many more trees.

Many of those cedars that ranchers (at least those in Central Texas) clear out are invasive (i.e., not native to the region). They're also incredibly thirsty and deplete the water that would be otherwise helpful to native trees and plants. It's actually good to clear those out because they spread like weeds, too, and can kill off many native plants by essentially choking them. I've got a lot of family in the Hill Country and have helped on ranches all my life in clearing that crap out - I feel your pain, literally! Don't forget your gloves, haha (I've made that mistake before as a kid...no sympathy from my family - lesson learned after only one time and many blisters).

That said, I agree that one of the greatest things about Austin is that it's a city often in concert with beautiful, natural surroundings. It was certainly a blessing that many freeways were cancelled years ago, even if we suffer the traffic nightmare today - imagine the mindless development in and around Central Austin if we had all those freeways? Not to mention, we have one of the most beautiful city cores because these things kept it unique not only from a neighborhood perspective but also from an environmental one. Clear-cutting land and planting stick-trees is not only an eyesore but harmful to the land in the long run. The dense canopy in Central Austin is absolutely something worth protecting.

KevinFromTexas

Apr 6, 2015, 11:17 PM

I realize you guys are speaking more generally about the canopy, but I don't know how applicable it is to this site. It appears to have been clear-cut at some point in the past, a very unfortunate treatment of the land. I used to help my grandfather clear land at his cattle ranch. We would take down cedar trees and destroy them like weeds. Oaks in the pasture were never touched and sometimes even cleaned up.

The adjacent neighborhoods have many more trees.

http://i.imgur.com/Wb08U8J.png

I think there's more trees along the creek simply because it's a good water source for them. And trees tend to grow in neighborhoods more because people pick them out at the plant nursery/garden store because they like them, and then plant them. Another major contributor is fence lines and power lines that act like highways for squirrels, rats and birds where they "plant" stuff after eating it. My neighborhood is totally forested now, but 50 years ago when my family first came here only a year or two after it was built, there was nothing except for the old growth Oaks, Elms and Pecans. All the other tree species were either planted by people or the wildlife along fence lines and power lines. And with the added human activity, a neighborhood is going to have more wildlife from things like food and water dishes people leave our for their pets. In a wide open natural piece of land, you're really only going to have tree species growing there that are indigenous to the region. There was a satellite imagery website that let you see photos of an area going back to the 50s, and there were almost no trees in our neighborhood except for the old growth stuff. It's weird and interesting to see how much humans can affect the natural environment, even within a neighborhood.

_Matt

Apr 7, 2015, 12:07 AM

Here's an interesting photo from 1964, before MoPac was built. The site for The Grove is the clearing in the center of the photo.

(click for big)
http://i.imgur.com/4SulIL5h.png (http://i.imgur.com/4SulIL5.png)
Source: TexasFreeways (http://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/historic/photos/austin_historic_photos.shtml)

Jdawgboy

Apr 7, 2015, 12:21 AM

Some musings as I've been reading through. When it comes to density specifically taller buildings with smaller footprints, they not only are beneficial in keeping large amounts of trees from being cut out but because they have small footprints that leaves more ground that is not
covered over letting more rainfall to seep into the ground instead of washing away.

While Blueberry Juniper trees (also known as Mountain Cedar though they are not true cedar) are fairly recent newcomers to the region in the sense that a few thousand years ago they were not here, they naturally moved into this area over time therefore they are native. They are also an important part of the ecology for other native plants and animals including the endangered Golden Cheeked Warbler.

Another thing to note is that most of the origional old growth forests and woodland-prairies was cleared out as far back as the early 1800s. Other than a few areas like Kevin's and my neighborhood with stands of old growth Live Oaks very little of what the area looked like naturally before 1800 exists. For example nearly all the Blueberry Juniper trees are 2nd or 3rd growth. At one time there were much larger and taller stands that were cut down for wood. The reason why they pop up creating thick clumps so quickly is because the land was cleared of the original growth taking out the other trees and plants that lived together. Since the Blueberry Juniper is typically the first to grow back, there's nothing else to keep it from spreading rapidly creating dense clumps that choke everything else out that tries to grow. The old growth Juniper stands were not like that.

Anywho I'm not sure how I feel about this development just yet.

lzppjb

Apr 7, 2015, 12:40 AM

Many of those cedars that ranchers (at least those in Central Texas) clear out are invasive (i.e., not native to the region). They're also incredibly thirsty and deplete the water that would be otherwise helpful to native trees and plants. It's actually good to clear those out because they spread like weeds, too, and can kill off many native plants by essentially choking them. I've got a lot of family in the Hill Country and have helped on ranches all my life in clearing that crap out - I feel your pain, literally! Don't forget your gloves, haha (I've made that mistake before as a kid...no sympathy from my family - lesson learned after only one time and many blisters).

That said, I agree that one of the greatest things about Austin is that it's a city often in concert with beautiful, natural surroundings. It was certainly a blessing that many freeways were cancelled years ago, even if we suffer the traffic nightmare today - imagine the mindless development in and around Central Austin if we had all those freeways? Not to mention, we have one of the most beautiful city cores because these things kept it unique not only from a neighborhood perspective but also from an environmental one. Clear-cutting land and planting stick-trees is not only an eyesore but harmful to the land in the long run. The dense canopy in Central Austin is absolutely something worth protecting.

I linked to an article debunking most of the cedar myths a couple years ago on this site. They are indeed native. The problem is that we now put out all the wildfires, so the trees that were once relegated to hill sides are now spreading everywhere.

LoneStarMike

Apr 22, 2015, 2:21 PM

From Community Impact:

Community compromise helps shape development
Construction could start on one of the largest undeveloped plots of Central Austin land by the end of the year.
by Jennifer Curington
April 22, 2015 (http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/central-austin/community-compromise-helps-shape-development/)

Based on the neighborhood feedback from a MileStone survey, Martin’s team created a map that showed where nearby residents preferred higher-density development within the project—mostly on the property’s west side along Bull Creek Road. The density decreases near Shoal Creek. The exact acreage of residential, retail, office and restaurant space is not established, according to developers.

Businesses within The Grove at Shoal Creek will be local, Martin said. The exact aesthetics of the neighborhood residences—a mixture of single-family homes, townhomes and apartments—has not yet been decided, he said. Instead, a design competition will be held among multiple architects to help determine the look of the new community, Martin said.

Image from article:

http://impactnews.com/downloads/37842/download/CTA-2015-04-01-2m2.jpg

Digatisdi

Apr 22, 2015, 4:32 PM

Hmm... One thing I'd like to see is a pedestrian/bike connection from that little cul-de-sac to Shoal Creek Boulevard. I guess that'd require some sort of easement from the State. I feel like I'd be much more sympathetic to this development if it had more pedestrian/bike connections to the west.

drummer

Apr 23, 2015, 3:25 AM

From that picture, it looks like a little mini-Mueller neighborhood.

Digatisdi

Jul 16, 2015, 8:31 PM

wwmiv

Jul 16, 2015, 8:39 PM

The Grove at Shoal Creek revised plans seek to address neighborhood concerns (http://communityimpact.com/2015/07/16/the-grove-at-shoal-creek-revised-plans-seek-to-address-neighborhood-concerns/)

It looks like more apartments, about the same level of townhomes, and less grid connectivity, but the key is impossible to read

This actually looks on the whole a better plan. It actually ends up being more dense, the street grid is spaced out a bit more which actually will help with traffic flow, without affecting connectivity that much except in a few key places.

It also has more retail AND got rid of the pad site in the NW and instead reoriented that retail building toward the street which is GREAT for walkability especially because the apartments in the NW is also reoriented to the sidewalk rather than being separated by a large useless green space that would eventually become dilapidated and unkept lessening the value of everyone in that neighborhood. In fact, everything is reoriented to the main thoroughfare.

Digatisdi

Jul 16, 2015, 8:45 PM

This actually looks on the whole a better plan. It actually ends up being more dense, the street grid is spaced out a bit more which actually will help with traffic flow, without affecting connectivity that much except in a few key places.

It also has more retail AND got rid of the pad site in the NW and instead reoriented that retail building toward the street which is GREAT for walkability especially because the apartments in the NW is also reoriented to the sidewalk rather than being separated by a large useless green space that would eventually become dilapidated and unkept lessening the value of everyone in that neighborhood. In fact, everything is reoriented to the main thoroughfare.

Yeah I wasn't making a judgement, I'd certainly like to see a more readable version, and actually it looks like there's a northern road connection which looks like it was lacking in the old plan. and I'm staunchly pro-roundabout, and it looks like the revised plan has two

Syndic

Jul 17, 2015, 2:05 AM

airwx

Jul 17, 2015, 2:16 AM

and actually it looks like there's a northern road connection which looks like it was lacking in the old plan.

I can't remember where I read it, but MileStone was able to buy a home on 45th street, which is what is going to allow for that northern connection. Looking at the Friends of the Grove facebook page, it looks like it is going to be right in and right out for the 45th street connection with a pedestrian hybrid beacon.

wwmiv

Jul 17, 2015, 2:19 AM

Collective input makes for more polished and interesting places, I think. Some myopic developer with dollar signs in his eyes alone is not a good party to be making such large places. I'm glad this happened. One of the most important changes seems to be moving the apartments in red in the top left corner closer to the road so that an ugly parking lot isn't visible from the street. Typical dumb developer move.

http://i.imgur.com/s6L8K4d.png

The red is retail, not residential I'm pretty sure. The red that is along the main thoroughfare within the parcel (with the black writing over it) seems to be retail with residential above. Orange is apartments. The grey is parking garage. Periwinkle are town homes. Golden is homes. The only question mark is the blue attached to the parking garages.

airwx

Jul 17, 2015, 2:25 AM

I believe the blue is the office space.

wwmiv

Jul 17, 2015, 2:28 AM

I believe the blue is the office space.

Ah. Yes. There we go.

drummer

Jul 17, 2015, 6:36 AM

I'm excited to see this one happen - it'll be a great addition to the area.

wwmiv, I don't think I have periwinkle in my color vocabulary...I guess I'm content with the basic colors...or boring, I suppose...whichever way you want to look at it. My wife would probably go with the latter. :haha:

Tech House

Jul 17, 2015, 5:34 PM

Digatisdi

Jul 17, 2015, 10:26 PM

On my monitor the periwinkle looks gray and the blue looks periwinkle. In any event, the new design is vastly improved and the whole project looks like high quality infill. I just wish it had a bridge to Shoal Creek Rd. rather than putting so much added stress on that awful stretch of 45th.

I agree, though I imagine that would require an easement from the state (They own that horrible building on the other side of Shoal Creek right?) which could take forever.

It looks like there might be enough room for a future ROW at the far east but I doubt anything will come of it for the foreseeable future. Personally I'm just very happy about the connection to the north

Tech House

Jul 22, 2015, 2:28 PM

They've uploaded an excellent, thorough video presentation to their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x79JN2dscQE

Maybe I'm a sucker for feel-good process-and-vision speak, but watching the first 20 minutes of the video and seeing their vision and the process they speak about made me feel very good. I'm extremely impressed by these developers. If anybody has nitpicky complaints about The Grove, I suggest you spend an hour driving around Cedar Park to see the type of disconnected quick-profit-maximizing auto-centric pukescape that results from the more common type of development in 21st century America.

They're even burying the utilities on Bull Creek! Wow. With developers like these, who needs a city planning department?

Ok, I'll stop gushing, I'm embarrassing myself.:P

AusTxDevelopment

Jul 22, 2015, 2:59 PM

Here's a more readable site plan from their website:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54b6b0a6e4b06e38ad518451/t/55a6988ee4b060dd615045b4/1436981395244/

http://www.thegroveatshoalcreek.com/

Edited to add: That's actually the old site plan. Here is the new one (same source):

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54b6b0a6e4b06e38ad518451/t/55a96050e4b031edd6f3c336/1437163629245/

Urbannizer

Aug 14, 2015, 6:39 PM

http://communityimpact.com/2015/08/11/more-than-180-affordable-units-proposed-for-the-grove-at-shoal-creek-development/

More than 180 affordable units proposed for The Grove at Shoal Creek development

Developers behind proposed mixed-use community The Grove at Shoal Creek have unveiled an affordable housing component in hopes of receiving Austin City Council’s approval.

The 75-acre development will be completed by Milestone Community Builders between Shoal Creek Boulevard and Bull Creek Road on land formerly owned by the Texas Department of Transportation. Apartments, townhomes, single-family homes and accessory dwelling units have been contemplated for the project so residents can live near anticipated parkland, office space and commercial retail outlets.

About 90 to 100 for-rent affordable units will be available for those earning between 30 percent to 60 percent of the area’s median family income, or MFI. That means a family of four earning between $24,250 and $46,080 would qualify. There are also plans for about 80 to 85 for-sale units, which would be restricted to those earning between 80 percent and 140 percent MFI, or $61,450 to $107,520 for a family of four.

“We think the council will recognize the fact that we’re providing a broad range of affordability on site instead of fee in lieu of [building off site] in one of Austin’s wealthiest neighborhoods in a project that’s trying to create a measured balance of all the competing interests,” Milestone CEO Garrett Martin said.

Austin City Council intends to postpone an Aug. 13 vote that would set the development’s baseline guidelines. Because The Grove at Shoal Creek developers have submitted a Planned Unit Development, or PUD, application to the city, council can set a baseline to help determine how much affordable housing is required within the development.

nixcity

Aug 15, 2015, 4:44 AM

This development has set a sort of benchmark for what all remaining new developments should look like. IMO there should be NO more only single family house neighborhoods or strip malls allowed within city limits.

drummer

Aug 15, 2015, 11:39 PM

While I agree with your thoughts on that, I don't think it'll happen. I would support some sort of regulations within a small radius of the core, but even that would be a stretch. Money will determine that more than anything else, and right now denser development seems more economical in the central portions of the city - which is great!

Tech House

Aug 16, 2015, 5:32 AM

What might be a more realistic approach is to evaluate each development in the context of its proposed location, and work toward balance within regions and neighborhoods with the aim of reducing car dependence, increasing walkability and density, integrating income levels, etc. Hmm, preach to the choir much?

In any event, these folks have dramatically raised the bar for all those hit-and-run corporate developers that don't give a flip about anything other than short term profit. I hope this turns out to be a financially rewarding endeavor for Milestone et al.

drummer

Aug 16, 2015, 6:55 AM

I agree - from what I've read this seems like a pretty awesome development. I just don't know that it's realistic to expect that of every development (as much as I would like to see that happen). I think the market is proving what works best in a lot of cities around the country...many, many cities are beginning to go dense rather than out. However, the suburbs are still expanding. There will always be folks who want that lifestyle...it's just best if it's not everyone or we'll lose more and more open space. DFW is practically in Oklahoma while the Houston metro is bigger than some small countries (I was exaggerating, but I looked this up out of curiosity - Houston metro is 10,062 sq. km...there are 83 countries smaller than that)...I'd like to not see Austin get much bigger geographically than it already is. I'm also preaching to the choir, I suppose. :notacrook:

hereinaustin

Aug 16, 2015, 1:02 PM

Houston metro is 10,062 sq. km...there are 83 countries smaller than that)...I'd like to not see Austin get much bigger geographically than it already is.

Sure, but as far as density goes, Austin is much more sprawled-out compared to Houston.

drummer

Aug 17, 2015, 4:11 AM

Is that right? I didn't catch those numbers - are you talking about Houston proper or the entire metro? I'm surprised by that, to be honest, but Houston metro does have a bunch of people.

Jdawgboy

Aug 17, 2015, 9:12 PM

Notice the reoccurring theme with our lovely new council?:rolleyes:

Austin City Council intends to postpone an Aug. 13 vote that would set the development’s baseline guidelines.

http://communityimpact.com/2015/08/11/more-than-180-affordable-units-proposed-for-the-grove-at-shoal-creek-development/

Just about every time I hear about the council on the news, it's postpone this or send to committee that and so on. I realize this is a completely new city government but for goodness sake, they should know how to run the city by now. You never saw new council members in the old system take this long. It's not like all of the previous staff at city hall up and left with this new system. These council members need to make decisions not continuously postpone items and agendas or send them to committee after committee.

I'd also like to get more details on who these people are on all these committees. Do they even know what the hell they are doing???

Anywho I'm glad that we are seeing developers make an effort to garantee affordable housing. If we are going to have any success with this issue we need many more developments putting at the very least some emphasis on affordable housing. I'd like to see developments push up to 50% with affordable housing and a wide range of housing options as well.

nixcity

Aug 17, 2015, 9:44 PM

^And the best part (for me at least) is that the affordable housing component doesn't just cover the lowest income brackets but also those of us in the lower parts of the middle class that never get help for anything!!!

clubtokyo

Aug 18, 2015, 2:45 PM

Novacek

Aug 18, 2015, 2:59 PM

Looking at these numbers, would you say Austin is ahead or behind when it comes to Density? I thought Austin would be more dense since land size is smaller?

Austin
City Land 264.9 sq mi
Population (2014)
City 912,791
Density 3,358.32/sq mi

Houston
City Land 599.59 sq mi
Population (2010)
City 2,099,451
Density 3,662/sq mi

Dallas
City 340.5 sq mi
Population (2010)
City 1,197,816
Density 3,645/sq mi

That area for Austin seems off. The census had us ~300 circa 2010
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html

And the CoA web site has us up 322 in 2014 (275 full purpose and the rest limited)

https://www.austintexas.gov/demographics

JAM

Aug 19, 2015, 9:25 PM

You fellers in posts 59 and 60 betta check your density math.

Novacek

Aug 19, 2015, 9:42 PM

You fellers in posts 59 and 60 betta check your density math.

Huh? I didn't do any math. Just listed total areas.

Novacek

Aug 21, 2015, 9:19 PM

They've posted a response to the Bull Creek neighborhood calling for minimal development in the area.

http://www.thegroveatshoalcreek.com/responsetobcrc

JAM

Aug 22, 2015, 5:48 PM

write up over here: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2015-08-21/frenemies-of-the-grove/

drummer

Aug 23, 2015, 12:25 AM

^^ Difficult to read through the comments. Some folks just don't understand the long-term impact of poor planning. Dense is actually better to reduce traffic, develop a better community-feel to neighborhoods, and encourage healthy growth - let's face it, growth will happen either way in the central portion of one of the fasting growing cities in the country. I'm always amazed by this. Also, another thing to consider is better mass transit throughout the central part of the city - something nobody from the neighborhood association has brought up. Less cars on the road = more people can happily live in that area = actually better for the environment in the long run = they're obviously NIMBYs even though they say otherwise.

...done preaching to the choir now...

Flatiron

Oct 6, 2015, 6:26 PM

It would be nice to see more density in the central city, rather than endless bureaucracy:

http://communityimpact.com/2015/10/01/austin-code-amendment-change-could-affect-the-grove-at-shoal-creek/

drummer

Oct 6, 2015, 11:11 PM

What are you talking about...America runs on endless bureaucracy...

Tech House

Oct 8, 2015, 1:13 AM

So, let me see if I understand... The COA spent a bunch of money on a consulting firm that told COA that we have the worst planning process the consultant has ever seen... and COA's response is to make it even worse?

Digatisdi

Oct 8, 2015, 1:30 AM

Flatiron

Dec 14, 2015, 5:08 PM

This development is central enough that there should be at least a few mid rise. The article is misleading though: there aren't "residents" in this development yet.

http://kxan.com/2015/12/12/public-meeting-held-for-shoal-creek-neighborhood-on-the-grove-development-plans/

drummer

Dec 14, 2015, 11:38 PM

The comments on that article continue to demonstrate the general lack of understanding of urbanism and its benefits.

Tech House

Dec 15, 2015, 11:03 PM

It's painful to watch this potentially fantastic project being tortured by obstructionists and control freaks. The developers have been spectacularly accommodating, far beyond what would ordinarily be expected, but there seems to be no end to the obstacles. It's almost capricious the way some neighbors and planners are interfering.

I recently heard an interview with a psychologist who discussed the general human tendency to avoid disruption. He made many excellent points, and I hadn't ever considered just how powerful a motivator this is. For example, if you look at the violent reaction of the public against any change to economic incentives that could even minimally disrupt their lives, it appears to be completely irrational and yet it's such a potent force in politics. As I listened to him, I looked within and could easily find many examples of my own irrational resistance to disruption. There's a psychological resistance to the process of accommodating change. We perceive forced adaptation as a fundamental violation of our personal and/or collective sovereignty. But there isn't a human being alive who hasn't fought to preserve a mediocre situation that could easily be improved if we would let go of our incorrigible attachment to the familiar.

jbssfelix

Feb 19, 2016, 9:50 PM

Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Spanning Shoal Creek Added To Plans for The Grove at Shoal Creek (http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?u=9fbfb09789d6bbc8a3c374d71&id=0fecec3b69)

wwmiv

Feb 20, 2016, 12:10 AM

This is HUGE news, less because of the bridge itself (which is nice), but more because of how seamlessly this bridge is getting political stakeholders behind the project.

Digatisdi

Mar 31, 2016, 3:42 PM

Grove at Shoal Creek Scaled Back Amid Neighborhood Concerns (http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/news/2016/03/31/grove-at-shoal-creek-scaled-back-amid-neighborhood-concerns.html)

wwmiv

Mar 31, 2016, 4:02 PM

Totally fine with that. It's still massively increased density from what's there now, and it is real density, still, too. In fact, one thing they've gotten rid of are the some of the larger single family homes and essentially replaced it with parkland. Office space has also been reduced, which will help cut down on the project's contribution to peak hour traffic in this area. That's smart for the area, but horrible regionally, where this parcel could have housed significant amounts of office space creating a more equitable geographic distribution of commute traffic flows thus not overburdening certain areas of our transportation infrastructure.

drummer

Apr 1, 2016, 1:19 AM

The one and only comment likens this development to "following fads."

wwmiv

Apr 1, 2016, 2:16 AM

The one and only comment likens this development to "following fads."

Oh it's even worse than you let on: that "lowers quality of life"

verybadgnome

Apr 1, 2016, 3:31 AM

"The traffic study found drivers currently wait about a minute to clear the intersection of Bull Creek Road and 45th Street during afternoon rush hour. By 2024, the analysis estimates drivers would have to wait more than 95 seconds to clear the intersection if no improvements are made and the Grove at Shoal Creek is not built."

35 extra seconds?

Again we go down the same path of not allowing density near employment centers and then are surprised that the deficit in transportation infrastructure worsens. I wish we were as progressive as Seattle where I think the general population has a greater understanding of how cities work best. Shame.

And secondly they seem to want both low density and affordability. How does that work without massive subsidies that come from where? Do they realize if the builder built for the market there would be zero single family homes less than $1M? I propose the neighborhood associations buy out the developer and build their appropriate-for-Austin-in-1960 style development. Then I will take them seriously.

The ATX

Apr 1, 2016, 5:08 AM

drummer

Apr 2, 2016, 1:12 AM

nixcity

Apr 2, 2016, 3:49 PM

Most reports show we are 40,000 residential units short of where we need to be. Let that number sink in, 40,000!!!! That amounts to 93 of our beloved 360s or 7 Muellers. And that number doesn't even account for units we will need for those that move here daily.
If we can't get these units centrally (ie Grove, 12 East, the other PUD that had to drastically reduce it's scope, and so many others) than it will continue to have to be in our periphery and the burbs. Either way what we get as an end result is a decrease in affordability and an increase in traffic.

Tech House

Apr 8, 2016, 1:53 AM

Increasing the supply is what lower prices. That's it. So many people think that we should stop letting developers build homes/condos/Apts. just because of the high prices/rents they are getting for them. I just keep SMH at how people don't see that stopping/eliminating development is what's keeping prices higher on existing places.

Price is determined by what people are willing to pay. Abundant supply certainly gives buyers a better chance of negotiating a lower price, but it doesn't drive price to the extent you're implying. We could just as easily make Austin affordable by driving away employers and plunging the region into a recession, or we could see prices drop if (and when) we experience a severe multi-year drought that scares people away. Prices drop when costs drop, too. All of the specific requirements tacked on by local gov't add to the cost of living here. Then there's the cost of materials, labor, engineering for the site, on and on it goes. We're going to be an expensive city until some sort of disaster strikes, and I'm pretty sure we can't build our way out of that. We could have a boom in new housing construction and that would just help fuel more growth, while putting only a small dent in the supply-demand equation.

There's a shortage of people in just about all phases of construction anyway, so of course that means that those workers demand higher wages and salaries --- it's a big circle-jerk of inflation. In fact, i wonder if there isn't a "flow" aspect to housing prices, similar to traffic, whereby you don't see improvement until you fix the bottlenecks. Like, is there a component of housing prices that acts as a floor? I think social psychology is a big part of it. Buyers reinforce one another's perceptions, and people pay what they believe is a reasonable price based on their perceptions of Austin's real estate market and other intangibles. It's mob psychology. Buyers could go on strike and make Austin affordable in a matter of weeks. We co-create reality.

The ATX

Apr 8, 2016, 2:56 AM

Price is determined by what people are willing to pay. Abundant supply certainly gives buyers a better chance of negotiating a lower price, but it doesn't drive price to the extent you're implying. We could just as easily make Austin affordable by driving away employers and plunging the region into a recession, or we could see prices drop if (and when) we experience a severe multi-year drought that scares people away. Prices drop when costs drop, too. All of the specific requirements tacked on by local gov't add to the cost of living here. Then there's the cost of materials, labor, engineering for the site, on and on it goes. We're going to be an expensive city until some sort of disaster strikes, and I'm pretty sure we can't build our way out of that. We could have a boom in new housing construction and that would just help fuel more growth, while putting only a small dent in the supply-demand equation.

There's a shortage of people in just about all phases of construction anyway, so of course that means that those workers demand higher wages and salaries --- it's a big circle-jerk of inflation. In fact, i wonder if there isn't a "flow" aspect to housing prices, similar to traffic, whereby you don't see improvement until you fix the bottlenecks. Like, is there a component of housing prices that acts as a floor? I think social psychology is a big part of it. Buyers reinforce one another's perceptions, and people pay what they believe is a reasonable price based on their perceptions of Austin's real estate market and other intangibles. It's mob psychology. Buyers could go on strike and make Austin affordable in a matter of weeks. We co-create reality.

You just went into a lot of detail about what affects supply and demand. If one wants to slice up all components of supply and demand and view them as separate issues that fine. But in the big picture they all add up to the same thing.

Tech House

Apr 8, 2016, 3:47 AM

You just went into a lot of detail about what affects supply and demand. If one wants to slice up all components of supply and demand and view them as separate issues that fine. But in the big picture they all add up to the same thing.

Yeah, best to ignore my comments today (and maybe most days) because I'm just in a zombie state, staring at my monitor and typing robotically without having any real purpose to what I'm saying. Just totally detached. It's a glimpse of what we can expect when our future android companions are on the fritz --- disjointed regurgitation of fragments of memory. In fact, the way my brain's working tonight is reminding me of how the navigator app on my phone occasionally acts. It *kind of* makes sense, but it's just wrong.

H2O

Apr 8, 2016, 10:53 AM

Yeah, best to ignore my comments today (and maybe most days) because I'm just in a zombie state, staring at my monitor and typing robotically without having any real purpose to what I'm saying. Just totally detached. It's a glimpse of what we can expect when our future android companions are on the fritz --- disjointed regurgitation of fragments of memory. In fact, the way my brain's working tonight is reminding me of how the navigator app on my phone occasionally acts. It *kind of* makes sense, but it's just wrong.

I, for one, am glad you are back (or at least your sense of humor is). It seems like we hadn't heard from you lately, or maybe your comments just haven't been as colorful. I always enjoy your wit.

wwmiv

Apr 8, 2016, 3:02 PM

Price is determined by what people are willing to pay. Abundant supply certainly gives buyers a better chance of negotiating a lower price, but it doesn't drive price to the extent you're implying. We could just as easily make Austin affordable by driving away employers and plunging the region into a recession, or we could see prices drop if (and when) we experience a severe multi-year drought that scares people away. Prices drop when costs drop, too. All of the specific requirements tacked on by local gov't add to the cost of living here. Then there's the cost of materials, labor, engineering for the site, on and on it goes. We're going to be an expensive city until some sort of disaster strikes, and I'm pretty sure we can't build our way out of that. We could have a boom in new housing construction and that would just help fuel more growth, while putting only a small dent in the supply-demand equation.

There's a shortage of people in just about all phases of construction anyway, so of course that means that those workers demand higher wages and salaries --- it's a big circle-jerk of inflation. In fact, i wonder if there isn't a "flow" aspect to housing prices, similar to traffic, whereby you don't see improvement until you fix the bottlenecks. Like, is there a component of housing prices that acts as a floor? I think social psychology is a big part of it. Buyers reinforce one another's perceptions, and people pay what they believe is a reasonable price based on their perceptions of Austin's real estate market and other intangibles. It's mob psychology. Buyers could go on strike and make Austin affordable in a matter of weeks. We co-create reality.

This is true, but I think you're underselling supply. The problem is really that we're having artificial constraints in supply: not enough cheap labor to construct new housing, more expensive materials, and local legal requirements (all three things you've mentioned) are all causal factors that decrease new supply.

Novacek

Apr 8, 2016, 4:19 PM

Price is determined by what people are willing to pay. Abundant supply certainly gives buyers a better chance of negotiating a lower price, but it doesn't drive price to the extent you're implying.

It doesn't just affect negotiating position (though that certainly helps). Supply also affects filtering (up and down).

Build enough luxury housing and fewer units filter up (fewer places do upgrades to take advantage of scarcity) and some start to filter down.

Tech House

Apr 9, 2016, 3:23 AM

I, for one, am glad you are back (or at least your sense of humor is). It seems like we hadn't heard from you lately, or maybe your comments just haven't been as colorful. I always enjoy your wit.

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate that. I've been less interested in this forum for the last few months because we're in a slow period where there isn't much news about skyscraper development, and I've been wasting all my comment mojo on debates with climate change deniers. But that's an area of expertise and great interest for me, whereas I'm a neophyte with respect to the topics on this forum.

It doesn't just affect negotiating position (though that certainly helps). Supply also affects filtering (up and down).

Build enough luxury housing and fewer units filter up (fewer places do upgrades to take advantage of scarcity) and some start to filter down.

Very interesting! So, if I understand you correctly, even if most of the new DT development is targeting the luxury market, it may contribute to affordability anyway? At times like this I really miss my pre-concussion brain, with which I'd be able to figure this out without having to ask.

Novacek

Apr 11, 2016, 2:11 PM

Very interesting! So, if I understand you correctly, even if most of the new DT development is targeting the luxury market, it may contribute to affordability anyway? At times like this I really miss my pre-concussion brain, with which I'd be able to figure this out without having to ask.

A slightly older but still very good explanation of filtering

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2013/07/filtering-is-a-real-thing-part-29.html

and an example

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2013/12/filtering-up-in-zilker.html

There's a few other articles addressing filtering on that same site.

Tech House

Apr 14, 2016, 12:26 AM

Thanks. I sort of get it. My general impression is that Austin's turning into a cross between San Jose and Sacramento, which is not intended to be taken (nor do I think it would be taken) as a compliment. But this is seemingly what the leaders and movers and shakers want, to attract a lot of investment and high-paying jobs and make it a tech-business-government boomtown that can't provide sufficient accommodations for its musicians and fry cooks. The skyline is gorgeous, one of the best in the country. Got mixed feelings. It's not the same city I moved to, no question about that. There's some good and some bad. Everything changes. I feel old.

AusTxDevelopment

Jul 16, 2016, 4:38 AM

Environmental Commission rejects PUD designation for the Grove, again.

Without the PUD designation, the developer would have to go through a more-traditional zoning process that could delay it even further.

Martin said he intends to move forward with the project as proposed, despite the thumbs down from the Environmental Commission and "will continue to work with the community and city leaders to address concerns as we go through the approval process."

Austin Environmental Board gives the Grove at Shoal Creek thumbs down
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/06/16/austin-environmental-board-thumbs-down-shoal-creek.html

nixcity

Jul 16, 2016, 4:58 AM

This coming around the same time that ZAP recommends increasing the residential portion by 200,000 sq. ft. The environmental board looks like a joke, denying responsible growth like this only leads to more and more any town USA sprawl on the fringes and in the burbs. Still feel this one will move forward though.

Novacek

Jul 16, 2016, 1:57 PM

Environmental Commission rejects PUD designation for the Grove, again.

Austin Environmental Board gives the Grove at Shoal Creek thumbs down
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/06/16/austin-environmental-board-thumbs-down-shoal-creek.html

That was back in June.

Based on the ZaP approval a couple days ago, I think the pendulum may have swung the other way.

LoneStarMike

Oct 18, 2016, 6:09 PM

Grove developers threaten to kill project (http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/10/grove-developers-threaten-kill-project/)

In a letter addressed yesterday to Mayor Steve Adler and all 10 members of Council, Jeff Howard, an attorney for the developer, states that the company will abandon its plans for a planned unit development if Council adopts a number of changes to the project offered by Council Member Leslie Pool, the leading opponent of ARG’s proposed project.

If ARG ditches the PUD application and instead pursues conventional zoning, the developer warns, the resulting project will be a group of expensive single-family homes rather than a mixed-use development that includes affordable housing, office space, retail and more parkland than would be required under conventional zoning.

Among the many amendments Pool has proposed, the one the developers view as the most unworkable would reduce the number of daily vehicle trips the project is allowed to generate by 25 percent, from roughly 24,000 to roughly 18,000.

That limit, argues Howard in the letter, would result in a nearly 50 percent reduction in office space, a 33 percent reduction in retail development and a 25 percent reduction in residential units.