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

[KevinFromTexas]

5 towers. From the photograph of the model in the link it looks like three of the towers are at least 400 feet tall while one of them might be pushing 500 feet. It's kind of hard to tell.

http://communityimpact.com/2015/10/26/central-health-reveals-plans-for-brackenridge/

Central Health reveals plans for Brackenridge
Proposal includes health-centered public market

By Kara NuzbackOctober 26, 2015

With the Medical District to the east and the Innovation Zone to the west, Central Health plans to redevelop the University Medical Center Brackenridge campus into a hub of healthy activity.

Preliminary plans for the Brackenridge redevelopment include realigning Red River Street and creating an open-air public market.

Plans are also in the works to create a pedestrian market in the center of the campus with food vendors and retail space.


http://i.imgur.com/VpLhGCz.jpg
Central Health - http://communityimpact.com/2015/10/26/central-health-reveals-plans-for-brackenridge/

[lzppjb]

Wow. I had no idea this is what was going to happen to that site.

[The ATX]

This should have it's own thread since it's not part of the Medical Center project. But anyway, this has always been envisioned as six tours, and the map accompanying the article shows six as well. But the model shown looks like five. I'm guessing the model should be considered the most accurate.

https://communityimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/massing-460x478.jpg
http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/Brackenridge%20Tract.png

[The ATX]

Conceptual renderings of this project were posted somewhere a while back, but here's one that I don't think has been posted yet:

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/Brackenridge%20Tract%20Rendering%201.png
http://www.centralhealth.net/

[Tech House]

Exciting and refreshing to see plans for towers outside of the downtown core. This will really help create the feel of a larger city, and it bodes well for what will become of the medical district in general. Now let's just hope that there are eager investors willing to make it happen.

[drummer]

Looks good. It'll connect well to the medical school and the northern fringes of downtown - now if only we could get the state-owned land to catch up!

[lzppjb]

This should have it's own thread since it's not part of the Medical Center project. But anyway, this has always been envisioned as six tours, and the map accompanying the article shows six as well. But the model shown looks like five. I'm guessing the model should be considered the most accurate.

https://communityimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/massing-460x478.jpg
http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/Brackenridge%20Tract.png

Maybe that middle blue tower on the right is just not visible in the model due to the angle. I think it's on the right, but behind that front tower.

[The ATX]

I just realized what looks like two towers on the left side of the model photo is really one building, and the two shorter ones are just out of view between the taller ones. If you look at the map the two towers in the lower left of the photo are on top of a single base. So this is 7 towers, although two are better described as mid-rises.

[Jdawgboy]

I just hope the final designs are anything but rectangles and squares. We have more than enough of that now. Hopefully they are just generalized place holders because they look exactly like some of the buildings going up.

[urbancore]

This development is so unexpected. I so hope it happens. What a horrible space. I just hope that people don't come out of the woodwork to save "the place where my Grandfather was born".

I hope it is designed well, but truthfully ANYTHING is better that was is there now.

Are there local forces that don't want this to happen? Other than market forces, what could keep this from fruition?

[KevinFromTexas]

I just hope the final designs are anything but rectangles and squares. We have more than enough of that now. Hopefully they are just generalized place holders because they look exactly like some of the buildings going up.

They're just stacking plans. I counted 32 levels on one of them, and the other seems to about the same. Considering these are office space that'll make it close to 500 feet.

This development is so unexpected. I so hope it happens. What a horrible space. I just hope that people don't come out of the woodwork to save "the place where my Grandfather was born".

I hope it is designed well, but truthfully ANYTHING is better that was is there now.

Are there local forces that don't want this to happen? Other than market forces, what could keep this from fruition?

I can't imagine anyone wanting to save Brackenridge. It's not historic. The main tower is from the mid-70s, and the children's hospital is from the mid-80s. The real old Brackenridge Hospital building is long gone. It was demolished in 1983. My brother was one of the last babies born in that building. My sister was born at the current Brackenridge tower, though. I was born in San Antonio. I can't say I'll be sorry to see Brackenridge go. My grandfather died there and my dad was treated there for cancer.

[drummer]

Yeah, the tower is ugly, too...so it's not even a relatively modern (~30-40 years), good-looking tower. I say get ride of it and build something quality and useful.

[Texas Jeff]

https://communityimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/massing-460x478.jpg
http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/Brackenridge%20Tract.png

Wouldn't the green building be built on top of an existing CVC along the existing Red River, the one that got the city in trouble over the height of the water intake?

If so, they should just move the CVC to be the top of whatever that grey building is at the base of the green building. Create a public space or rooftop park to view the capitol and forget about modifying the water intake.

Am I wrong on that?

[Cloud92]

pretty sure the cvc stops at the creek line or where the current red river street is.

[jbssfelix]

pretty sure the cvc stops at the creek line or where the current red river street is.

Yup, one dead-ends right at Red River, although if they planned on building south to 12th St, there's another skinny one that crosses over 35.

https://www.preservationaustin.org/uploads/Capitol_View_Corridors_map1.pdf

[KevinFromTexas]

An article from the American-Statesman on the redevelopment potential of the Brackenridge Hospital Tract in downtown.

"The development could have as much as 3.7 million square feet of space, and buildings as tall as 35 to 40 stories. Proposed uses include a hotel, housing, restaurants, shops and a new medical office building."

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business/prime-downtown-austin-hospital-site-poised-for-red/nqCxK/?icmp=statesman_internallink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral

[lzppjb]

15-20 years?

But I want it nowwwwww.

[The ATX]

15-20 years?

But I want it nowwwwww.

My thoughts exactly. It's "only" six or seven towers, so I don't see that taking 20 years.

[lzppjb]

Hey, ATX...you should change that Au avatar so that the atomic number is 39 ('39).

[KevinFromTexas]

:previous:+1

Although, I was born in '79 so it makes me smile.

[AusTxDevelopment]

From the statesman. Image is credited to Gensler.

Prime downtown Austin hospital site poised for redevelopment
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business/prime-downtown-austin-hospital-site-poised-for-red/nqCxK/

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/715/img/photos/2016/01/26/aa/1d/Brack_visualization_05.JPG
Visualization for what the Brackenridge development could look like when completed. These visuals are referred to as a "potential for build out" - they are not intended to be literal interpretations of what the campus will look like.

[The ATX]

Hey, ATX...you should change that Au avatar so that the atomic number is 39 ('39).

It took me a while to figure that one out. But since Austin was founded in 1839...

[lzppjb]

It took me a while to figure that one out. But since Austin was founded in 1839...

:cheers:

[The ATX]

:cheers:

My first thought was that 2039 is the year this project will be completed.

[SkyPie]

http://i.imgur.com/8m7XMDO.jpg

[_Matt]

Realizing the visualization is not a plan (but a possibility), I would probably write off the green roofs. But, how likely is that promenade through the center?

[SkyPie]

Realizing the visualization is not a plan (but a possibility), I would probably write off the green roofs. But, how likely is that promenade through the center?

They seem pretty enamored with it as its been in all the renderings we've seen before. I hope it happens as a public market as shown on the second picture below.

http://i.imgur.com/EF6taxc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/riPlyf2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/V3ssZIU.jpg

[Novacek]

They seem pretty enamored with it as its been in all the renderings we've seen before. I hope it happens as a public market as shown on the second picture below.

http://i.imgur.com/EF6taxc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/riPlyf2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/V3ssZIU.jpg


What's the link/location for those pictures/map?

[lzppjb]

Awesome! Do you have a link to those pics?

[_Matt]

It took a bit to sink in, but this is really quite impressive. Maybe it doesn't have the height or signature tower design, but this is adding nearly the density of another green water development right on the edge of downtown.

And just like the Green Water area, there's even an Austin Energy substation to the south of Block 166.

[The ATX]

Here's the link - lot's of good stuff: http://www.centralhealthcampus.net/planning/?_ga=1.43958631.392690414.1453877651

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ihatethisplacenothingworks/Brackenridge%20Tract%20Rendering%202.png

[wwmiv]

Remember: these are not supposed to be taken as actual designs. The designs will change between now and 15 years from now. By the way: note that that's about how long it's taken for Greenwater to get up and started. We've been talking about /specific/ proposals since, what, 2006, and the idea for redevelopment has been on the drawing board longer. This is going to be the next fun long project in Austin's downtown, giving us four major redevelopment areas done in a cohesive manner: Green Water, Mueller, Domain, and Brackenridge.

This is a master plan, so although the specific designs of the towers may change, I highly doubt that the grander principles will change. Thus, we're likely to see things like the market (unless another permanent market space elsewhere gets off the ground) and the pedestrian promenade remain in place.

Edit: whatever ends up getting developed will be pretty huge per:

"S-1.2: Balanced with Central Health’s mission,
maximize the revenue-generating potential of each of
the six redevelopment blocks to support Central Health’s
mission throughout Travis County, including that from
existing buildings to remain on the campus during the
first phase of redevelopment;"

... and it will also be designed with pedestrian use in mind:

"S-1.3: Keep the existing Main Parking Garage for the
foreseeable future to maintain this revenue source
to Central Health and to provide parking for the Dell
Seton Medical Center. Enhance the Main Garage
by constructing a new “liner” building on its west,
Waterloo Park-facing façade that provides ground-floor,
pedestrian-oriented uses with leaseable space above.
Keep the existing CEC Building and the CEC Parking
Garage during Phase 1 of the project, given their high
functionality and their lease revenue;"

... and their justification for all of these things is fiscal, suggesting that they'll follow through with their word provided that Austin's economy continues apace (pg. 19).

[Tech House]

Something that is relentlessly mystifying to me is the dearth of trees in many of the city's grand outdoor spaces, and this looks like it will be no exception. Do our city officials believe that we share the same climate as Seattle or Portland? I just don't get the fascination with broad expanses of sun-drenched concrete and grass. Mix in some shade. It's even hot out in the sun today, in late January!

[wwmiv]

Speaking of Brackenridge... I really wish we'd get some more attention by political leaders on the Brackenridge Tract. There's already a project report for use but it has sat untouched since its release in 2009.

Edit: nevermind, just re-read the report and nothing can be done until 2019 anyway.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/real-estate/2016/01/wanted-developer-with-vision-deep-pockets.html

Wanted: Developer with vision, deep pockets and passion for healthy living
Jan 29, 2016, 1:32pm CST

Within the next six months, Central Health will embark on one of the most important development opportunities in Austin history.

Central Health will release its request for proposal or qualifications for the 14.3-acre site where University Medical Center Brackenridge currently is located, which is expected to be transformed into some type of mixed-use configuration.

In all, 3.7 million square feet of space could be developed. Buildings may rise up to 40 stories. On one hand it sounds like a development dream, but the project, which will require multiple financing sources, is expected to unfold in a carefully appointed timeline. There are very few examples of this kind of project anywhere around the world — multifaceted health-focused developments that incorporate housing, traditional offices, hospitality and retail in a small footprint.

[The ATX]

This is going to be fun to watch. It's where the Seaholm/Greenwater/ECC projects were at 10 years ago. This will push out the boundaries of NE Downtown just as those projects did for the SW corner.

This is also adjacent to the Medical Center and Capitol Complex. At buildout, the three projects have a combined total of around 71 buildings planned. Throw the adjacent One Two East and Waterloo Park towers in with that, and we got a lot to look forward to over the next decade or two.

[H2O]

It took a bit to sink in, but this is really quite impressive. Maybe it doesn't have the height or signature tower design, but this is adding nearly the density of another green water development right on the edge of downtown.

And just like the Green Water area, there's even an Austin Energy substation to the south of Block 166.

This development is over twice the scale of GreenWater: 14.3 acres vs. 6; 6 blocks vs. 2 3/4; 3.7 M sf. vs. 1.7 M. The combined Central Health Campus, Medical School Campus and Waterloo Park is roughly the same size as the entire Seaholm District.

[_Matt]

This development is over twice the scale of GreenWater: 14.3 acres vs. 6; 6 blocks vs. 2 3/4; 3.7 M sf. vs. 1.7 M. The combined Central Health Campus, Medical School Campus and Waterloo Park is roughly the same size as the entire Seaholm District.

Yes, Seaholm district might be a good comparison.

[The ATX]

The RFQ for devlopers begins tomorrow (09/01):

ABJ: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/08/31/calling-all-developers-central-health-seeks.html

[wwmiv]

The RFQ for devlopers begins tomorrow (09/01):

ABJ: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/08/31/calling-all-developers-central-health-seeks.html

This is incredibly exciting. Hopefully we'll see competing alternatives by next summer.

[drummer]

I'm especially excited about the market in the middle if they continue with that plan. Just think of what Seaholm could've been had the power plant become a market like some suggested on this form. Let's hope they keep with that one there. It would be a strong draw for those in East Austin (including those who were so opposed to One Two East)...

This whole project is very cool, in my opinion.

[KevinFromTexas]

Fox7 had a story a little while ago on this. They showed some more renderings that I haven't seen here, plus a model they have set up at the Dell Medical School Health Learning building. This is the article from that story, but no new renderings.

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/199064461-story

Central Health invites developers to participate in Brackenridge campus redevelopment

By: Rudy Koski
POSTED:SEP 01 2016 04:31PM CDT
UPDATED:SEP 01 2016 04:31PM CDT

A large model on a table, at the Dell Medical School Health Learning building, provides an idea of what the Brackenridge hospital tract could eventually look like. The cluster of white high rides had Juan Garza, Central Health's Vice President for Finance and Development, pretty excited.

Architectural renderings of the mixed use development, provided by Central Health, envision a new city district. There could be multiple high rises for offices, hotels, stores, residential lofts as well as outdoor gathering spots.

"This will bring thousands of jobs to this part of the downtown area, the medical school and the hospital already bring about 15,000 souls to this one spot, and that’s going to double that,” said Garza.

Thursday, the search got underway to find a lead developer to transform the 14 acres of land; which is essentially the size of six city blocks. The center of the development, simply known right now as the plaza, just may be one of the most critical parts of the plan.

[KevinFromTexas]

Here we go.

http://www.centralhealthcampus.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CH-RFQ-2016.98.01_digital.pdf

http://www.centralhealthcampus.net/

http://i.imgur.com/Tx3U6n2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AKAzcfG.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6Xod3JS.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/r6xVpTC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3x9jOb5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/l96TjLx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/TByeLTW.jpg

[wwmiv]

Anyone reading this document should note this very strong language on pg. 3 (11th page of the .pdf)

This opportunity is not isolated, however, as
numerous initiatives are underway in the vicinity of
the Site. In addition to the UT and Seton projects, these
proximate initiatives include:

• The newly-completed Waller Creek Tunnel Project
which removed more than 28 acres of downtown
property along Waller Creek from the 100-year
floodplain, allowing for these properties to be fully
developed.

• The Waller Creek Conservancy’s efforts to
implement a series of parks, plazas, promenades
and trails along Waller Creek, from Waterloo Park
(adjacent to the Site) south to Lady Bird Lake.

• The creation of a nonprofit organization, Capital
City Innovation, Inc. by Central Health, UT and
Seton to guide development of an “Innovation
Zone” which will serve as a catalyst for collaboration
and advancement of health-related research and
commerce.

• Capital Metro’s Project Connect, which envisions
rapid bus and urban rail, as well as local bus service
interfacing with other modes of transit that directly
serve the Site and Waterloo Park.

• The Texas Department of Transportation’s
(TxDOT’s) planned improvements to the downtown
segment of I-35, including depressing the freeway
and “capping” it with surface-level parks and
plazas, intended to better link East Austin to
Downtown.

• The efforts of the Texas Facilities Commission
(TFC) to consolidate State of Texas offices within
new buildings to be located along North Congress
Avenue, which will be rebuilt as a greatly
enhanced, mall-like promenade north of the Capitol
Building.

• The efforts of the Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA)
– with its $5 million public improvement district
that includes the Central Health Brackenridge
Campus – is a partnership of downtown property
owners, individuals, and businesses devoted to
advancing the collective vision for the future of
downtown.

They're very clear when things are not "concrete" -- take, for instance, CapMetro "envisions" rail or that there are groups which are helping to bring certain business types to this area, but haven't yet. The strong language suggests even TxDot -- and let's not pretend that the document wasn't put together by a very well connected group of people, because it definitely was, and I bet you they all know something we don't -- prefers the depressed option.

[clubtokyo]

Anyone reading this document should note this very strong language on pg. 3 (11th page of the .pdf)



They're very clear when things are not "concrete" -- take, for instance, CapMetro "envisions" rail or that there are groups which are helping to bring certain business types to this area, but haven't yet. The strong language suggests even TxDot -- and let's not pretend that the document wasn't put together by a very well connected group of people, because it definitely was, and I bet you they all know something we don't -- prefers the depressed option.

Awesome! Underground i35 please!

[N90]

Will they have to tear down any buildings for this? How many and how tall?

[KevinFromTexas]

Will they have to tear down any buildings for this? How many and how tall?

It looks like 7 high rises total. 6 technically since two of those will come out of the same podium. The stated scale is up to 40 floors. One of those towers in the rendering I posted above looks to have 37 floors.

Brackenridge Hospital will be torn down to make way for this. They'll likely leave the parking garage for a while before it too is replaced eventually.

]I will not be sad to see Brackenridge go. Too many bad memories there.

[The ATX]

Will they have to tear down any buildings for this? How many and how tall?

All the buildings in the project area highlighted in yellow in one of the renderings in Kevin's post will be demo'ed.

[We vs us]

Anyone reading this document should note this very strong language on pg. 3 (11th page of the .pdf)



They're very clear when things are not "concrete" -- take, for instance, CapMetro "envisions" rail or that there are groups which are helping to bring certain business types to this area, but haven't yet. The strong language suggests even TxDot -- and let's not pretend that the document wasn't put together by a very well connected group of people, because it definitely was, and I bet you they all know something we don't -- prefers the depressed option.

The last slide on Kevin's post actually shows planned greenspace on I-35.

[We vs us]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/metropolitan-revolution/2016/07/05/austins-big-bet-on-the-future-of-urban-health-care/

Worth quoting in full -- really helped put the Brackenridge development in context.

Academic medical centers are facing tough times. Hospitals and health systems associated with medical schools are some of the most expensive health care institutions to operate because they are designed to deliver complex, specialized care. In addition, revenue generated from their health services must subsidize teaching and research. While this model may have succeeded in the past, now price pressure and the drive for value-based care (as opposed to patients and insurers just paying for the quantity of services provided) are challenging AMCs to find new revenue sources.

Foremost among the price pressures is the fact that, as the entire health system tries to become leaner, many insurers are questioning whether expensive AMCs belong in their networks. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act and other federal reforms disproportionately impact AMCs because these institutions are often located in urban areas and serve high numbers of Medicaid recipients. For example, 60 percent of AMC reimbursements come from Medicaid, Medicare, or other government programs. As these programs begin to tighten restrictions and rewards based on quality, traditional models of care are being called into question. Together, McKinsey estimates that these and other pressures could reduce AMC margins by 4 to 5 percent—driving many into the red.

It doesn’t seem like a very good time to open a new medical school, but that’s exactly what’s happened in Austin, Texas. The University of Texas recently opened the Dell Medical School, the first new medical school alongside a top-tier research university in this country in over five decades. The school is part of a larger development the city is calling its “Innovation Zone”, an area in the northeastern corridor of downtown that includes the medical school as well as surrounding amenities, research facilities, and businesses.

The Innovation Zone is a classic example of what we at the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Initiative on Innovation and Placemaking refer to as an anchor-plus innovation district. By integrating into the broader downtown district, public and private leadership in Austin hopes the new medical school can serve as a force multiplier for community health and regional economic activity. While it’s far too early to judge Austin’s innovation district, here are three smart initial moves other AMC-based innovation districts could learn from.

First, early on the medical school built strong relationships to community health.

Leaders in Austin’s public, civic, and private sectors want the medical school to be not just an AMC but also the connective tissue between health innovation and community care. To that end, a nonprofit organization called Capital City Innovation Inc. was created to oversee the Innovation Zone. Its board comprises representatives from the University of Texas and its Dell Medical School, Central Health–Travis County’s health care district, and Seton Healthcare Family, with the remaining four slots to be held by local organizations yet to be determined. In order to connect the district to the wider city, Mayor Steve Adler and Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt will serve as advisory members.

Several efforts are underway to create stronger links between the community and the medical school. Central Health has engaged with the Project for Public Spaces (our partners in the Bass Initiative) to create a public marketplace near the medical school. The City of Austin and Travis County have formed a partnership with the Rocky Mountain Institute to develop creative solutions to local transportation challenges around the Zone. And other ideas being discussed include working with the Austin Community College to link workers with associate degrees to employment and educational opportunities within the Zone.

Maintaining strong ties to the community improves clinical outcomes, which is good public policy and supports UT’s bottom line. According to a report by Becker’s Hospital Review, “AMCs can do a lot of complex work, but 90 percent of patients are people who need to quit smoking, eat better, improve their literacy and find a better-paying job.” As hospitals become increasingly responsible for health outcomes, strong community partnerships will become increasingly critical.

Second, UT is creating a sustainable revenue model based on the quality not quantity of care. Though many hospital systems are leery of the transition to value-base reimbursement, Dell Medical is betting on it.

According to Dr. Maninder Kahlon, the school’s vice dean for strategy and partnerships, in order to credibly commit to a value-based care model the medical school needed to develop clear funding streams outside of its clinical services because the teaching hospital will never generate as much revenue as a traditional fee-for-service hospital. One option is becoming best-in-class at bundled payments (in which instead of cutting multiple checks insurance companies pay one lump sum for an “episode” of care, such as a surgery). Given the importance of Medicaid reimbursements for AMCs, Dell has recruited several senior faculty members who have worked for Medicare and Medicaid and are experts at bundled payments. Thus, a potential source of revenue may be supporting other health entities in better managing bundled payments.

Third, the school is linking its research agenda with the regional economy.

Unlike most other medical schools, Dell’s research agenda will not focus specifically on drug development because, according to Dr. Kahlon, academic research should match Austin’s economy. Austin currently isn’t well positioned to compete in pharmaceuticals, but the city is a software powerhouse.

Therefore, research at the medical school will be more interdisciplinary, working with UT’s engineering and computer science departments as well as the city’s tech entrepreneurs. For example, the Department of Neurology plans to partner with UT’s Cockrell School of Engineering and the College of Natural Sciences to develop basic and clinical research programs that create breakthroughs in imaging technologies. And Dell Medical School, working with Seton Healthcare Family (a corporate partner), other community care facilities, and software developers, will research novel approaches to health data, including everything from nurse optimization to aggregative personalized patient data—all of which offer commercial opportunities and revenue generators for the school and better health outcomes for the community.

Pressure is mounting for new models of care delivery across the U.S. health care system. Given their high costs and reliance on federal payments, hospitals associated with urban medical schools are likely to be leading indicators of how care providers adapt to disruptive times. It’s far too early to know if Austin’s bet will pay off, but these three initial organizing principles offer clear examples for other AMCs trying to break away from old models.

[The ATX]

Community Impact has an update. These are the 12 developers that expressed interest:

Brandywine Realty Trust, a Radnor, Pennsylvania-based company with an office in Austin. Brandywine is developing 405 Colorado, a 25-story building planned in Central Austin at the intersection of West Fourth and Colorado streets.

Catellus Development Corp., based in Oakland, California, with a regional office in Austin. Catellus is behind the Mueller mixed-use development in East Austin at the former site of the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport.

Downtown Life Center, which recently formed as a limited liability company, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s office. No additional information was immediately available.

Duke Realty, of Indianapolis, develops industrial and heath care-related projects nationwide and has a market presence in Dallas and Houston.

Endeavor Real Estate Group, of Austin. Endeavor is the developer of The Domain in Northwest Austin as well as the IBC Bank Plaza and The Bowie, both located downtown. Endeavor was also picked by Capital Metro to lead the Plaza Saltillo redevelopment project in East Austin.

Lincoln Property Company, of Dallas, has built residential and commercial projects throughout the country.

RM Realty Group, of Houston, is involved in a range of development work across the U.S.

Portman Holdings, based in Atlanta, the company developed the Peachtree Center Atlanta and has built other mixed-use projects in the U.S. and overseas.

Ryan Companies US, with headquarters in Minneapolis and an Austin office, the company operates in several development markets and has worked on local affordable housing projects, including Urban Oaks in South Austin, which is under construction at Circle S Road and William Cannon Drive.

The Howard Hughes Corp., of Dallas, is known for its master-planned communities. The company’s Texas properties include The Woodlands and AllenTowne, a mixed-use development north of Dallas.

The Opus Group, based in Australia, the company is developing the American Academy of Pediatrics National Headquarters in Itasca, Illinois, as well as the corporate headquarters of Xcel Energy in Amarillo.

Wexford Science + Technology, a Baltimore-based real estate company that has developed projects in partnership with universities, academic medical centers and research firms.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/development-construction/2016/10/31/these-developers-showing-interest-in-central-healths-brackenridge-campus-redevelopment/

[Urbannizer]

Central Health wants no density limit for Brackenridge redevelopment (https://communityimpact.com/austin/development-construction/2017/01/13/central-health-wants-no-density-limit-brackenridge-redevelopment/)

As it moves forward with a plan to redevelop the University Medical Center Brackenridge campus into a mixed-use district, Central Health wants Austin City Council to approve a special zoning “overlay” that would allow for unlimited development density.

Central Health officials outlined the plan Thursday during a community event at the Travis County health district’s office on East Cesar Chavez Street in Austin.

Central Health will lease the Brackenridge campus to a master developer but will keep ownership of the property. Twelve developers responded to a request for qualifications, or RFQ, issued by Central Health this past fall.

Right now, the campus is zoned for public use by the city of Austin. But Meade said Central Health would like Austin City Council to approve a special zoning variance for the site that would allow a mix of zoning classifications and place no restrictions on density, aside from necessary regulatory setbacks and view corridors.

Meade said a proposal is before Austin’s Planning Commission and a public hearing will likely be held before the end of February.

The proposal could be brought before the full City Council in March or April, she said.

[jbssfelix]

Central Health wants no density limit for Brackenridge redevelopment (https://communityimpact.com/austin/development-construction/2017/01/13/central-health-wants-no-density-limit-brackenridge-redevelopment/)

Good.

[We vs us]

Down to 4 finalists:

"Landowner Central Health released Friday afternoon a list of four finalists out of 12 companies that submitted a request for qualifications. The next phase of the bidding process, which involves a request for proposals, will begin in February or March, according to Central Health.

The land, six blocks at 15th Street and I-35, is one of the largest infill development opportunities in Austin. Building heights are expected to exceed more than 30 stories.

The four finalists are:

• Brandywine Realty Trust (NYSE: BDN), which has an extensive Austin portfolio, including IBM's "Broadmoor" campus near The Domain.

• Catellus Development Corp., the developer of the Mueller mixed-use community northeast of downtown.

• A partnership between Howard Hughes Corp. and Cambridge Holdings. Howard Hughes is based in Dallas and would be a new entrant to the Austin market. It was one of the co-developers of The Woodlands master-planned community north of Houston.

• Wexford Science + Technology, based in Baltimore, has developed and operated numerous higher education developments tied to academic medical centers and research institutions, including the University of Maryland BioPark. It would also be a new player in Austin.

Since 1889 the 14.3-acre site has been home to a hospital. However, once Brackenridge is replaced with the opening later this year of Dell Seton Medical Center, which is next door to the newly opened Dell Medical School, the land will be available to convert into some sort of mixed-use configuration — though Central Health wants it to remain a nexus for community health, and parts of the area could be included in the so-called "Innovation District" that is being planned to support Dell Medical School.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/02/06/brackenridge-hospital-campus-redevelopment-race.html

[The ATX]

One of the proposed new East Austin CVCs would prevent high-rises on half of the Brackenridge site. Thus killing the project as envisioned.
This city is going to crap because the city leaders are doing the opposite of good urban planning. It baffles me how they continue to give lip service to affordable housing but actually make it worse with their actions and inactions.

[ATXboom]

One of the proposed new East Austin CVCs would prevent high-rises on half of the Brackenridge site. Thus killing the project as envisioned.
This city is going to crap because the city leaders are doing the opposite of good urban planning. It baffles me how they continue to give lip service to affordable housing but actually make it worse with their actions and inactions.

This will hurt healthcare for those most in need.
It will hurt affordability via reduced density.
It likely kills any notion of an innovation zone.

I wrote the mayor. Urge u to reach out to council.

[MichaelB]

Do you know which corridor? Would prefer to be specific rather that demonize the concept of keeping the history of the Capitol visually connected.

[Novacek]

Do you know which corridor? Would prefer to be specific rather that demonize the concept of keeping the history of the Capitol visually connected.

There's a picture/map on the statesman story

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/city-council-considers-expanding-capitol-view-corridors-east-austin/AmMaam4XUYzDxGPgDQSUbK/

In this case, it seems to be the one out to Thompson street.

[jbssfelix]

Do you know which corridor? Would prefer to be specific rather that demonize the concept of keeping the history of the Capitol visually connected.

A majority of the proposed CVCs would destroy/significantly alter the Brackenridge project, but the northermost one is the big dagger.

http://www.mystatesman.com/rf/image_medium/Pub/p8/MyStatesman/2017/02/15/Images/newsEngin.17768621_web-021517-aus-corridors.jpg

Source: Statesman (http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-govt--politics/city-council-considers-expanding-capitol-view-corridors-east-austin/AmMaam4XUYzDxGPgDQSUbK/)

[wwmiv]

I definitely support a view from the Texas State Cemetery and Huston-Tillotson.

[Jdawgboy]

I have a solution! Instead of 40 story buildings have 2 towers one 70 stories and the other 80 stories...:skyhighmind:


Sure we have CVCs but let's take advantage of that like other developers have such as 360, Independent and others. Build up up up. We keep getting buildings capped between 30 and 40 floors on sites that have no height limit. Its a waste imo. If we are going to push density then we need to push 50 floors or more and if a CVC lies over a lot then all the more reason to build taller. Now I know there are other economical and expense factors for doing that but we seriously need to break through those barriers if we are to get to the next level.

[wwmiv]

Well, the request for unlimited height was ironically prescient of them...

[Jdawgboy]

Okay just got into the main update thread and if this is a proposed cvc, I'd so no way, not over this tract.

[JoninATX]

I have a solution! Instead of 40 story buildings have 2 towers one 70 stories and the other 80 stories...:skyhighmind:


Sure we have CVCs but let's take advantage of that like other developers have such as 360, Independent and others. Build up up up. We keep getting buildings capped between 30 and 40 floors on sites that have no height limit. Its a waste imo. If we are going to push density then we need to push 50 floors or more and if a CVC lies over a lot then all the more reason to build taller. Now I know there are other economical and expense factors for doing that but we seriously need to break through those barriers if we are to get to the next level.

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

[jbssfelix]

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

I believe that parking lot is being looked at by TravCo for a govt building. :yuck:

[GoldenBoot]

I believe that parking lot is being looked at by TravCo for a govt building. :yuck:

No. They are selling it to a developer. Negotiations have already commenced.

[jbssfelix]

No. They are selling it to a developer. Negotiations have already commenced.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Glad to know it still has potential. :tup:

[wwmiv]

There's no such thing as unlimited height in Austin, because we use FAR restrictions.

Thank you! It's mind boogling why developers don't push the height limit to the max in some of these areas that are not under the CVC. For instance the parking lot behind AMLI, a tower could rise 1,000ft+ in that particular spot.

[Urbannizer]

Plan advances to create more Capitol View Corridors in Austin — with major exception (http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/02/17/plan-advances-to-create-more-capitol-view.html)

Controversial plans to create new Capitol View Corridors, which would significantly shape development in East Austin, are moving ahead — with one major exception. The corridor that would affect the redevelopment of the Brackenridge hospital site is on hold for now at Austin City Council City's direction.

Council voted Thursday evening to direct staff to study creating four corridors that slice east of the Texas Capitol, while delaying action on the Brackenridge corridor. The Capitol View Corridors are invisible lines drawn years ago that restrict building heights in order to preserve views of the Capitol building from various parts of town.

The vote to move ahead with four corridors was unanimous while the amendment excluding the Brackenridge corridor was approved 8-3. The corridor affecting Brackenridge will be considered again by Council on March 2.

[wwmiv]

That's a positive sign.

That's my map they linked, to btw.

[drummer]

That is positive, all things considered.

[GoldenBoot]

Positive...possibly. However, they should have just killed that specific CVC proposal. This now will more than likely delay Central Health's ability to move forward with their RFPs. They were going to begin that process late this month/early next month.

[KevinFromTexas]

Would this affect the Trump Hotel? Man, I'd love to see that showdown.

EDIT: It will. Two of the proposed corridors would go right over the site. I wonder how that would play out. Serious question, of course.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1OmWNgmriRu9gDHuwrrVaRxb03W8&hl=en_US&ll=30.272895083645988%2C-97.7336185864487&z=18

[The ATX]

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago. But that would make the proposed CVC pointless because the view would be blocked. But it has been clear from the beginning that the purpose of the new CVCs is only to block new construction east of I-35 and the Scion project is on the west side.

[GoldenBoot]

Question (and I know this is the wrong place): After reviewing the CVC map, how will current CVCs affect the location of the new UT basketball arena?

[GoldenBoot]

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago. But that would make the proposed CVC pointless because the view would be blocked.

Very true. I also think there will be huge political pressure to squash the one cutting through Central Health's Brack campus.

[wwmiv]

Whatever the Trump/Scion/Waterloo Park hotel tower project turns out to be, it seems like it would be grandfathered in since the site plan application was filed a long time ago.

I don't think this would be the case.

[ATXPhil]

This is yet another loss for dense high-rise development efforts in this city (delayed CodeNext drafts was a blow that probably kept at least a few taller towers from getting approved during this cycle due to the current FAR restrictions). I'm beyond fed up with our meddling city council. They are such idiots.

If the Scion hotel proposed at 32-33 stories gets blocked (and any other towers that have been proposed or could have been built in these proposed CVCs) that is a loss. If the site plan was already approved then I hope the city gets sued. City council never stops talking about affordability but then ties up proposals that would give much needed supply to keep rents & home prices closer to equilibrium in permitting review for over a year in most cases (NO other major city in Texas does this). Oh, that's right, now as a developer you can pay a large fee to have permitting review expidited. On top of having to contribute to various politically-interests (like Parks & Rec or Aff Housing) if you're not developing Apartments, in which case now you have to include at least 10% of units at less than market rate or you won't even get approved. It is basically bribery and extortion....just to accomplish what is set out in the city's master plan anyway. Ridiculous!!!

[The ATX]

This is yet another loss for dense high-rise development efforts in this city (delayed CodeNext drafts was a blow that probably kept at least a few taller towers from getting approved during this cycle due to the current FAR restrictions). I'm beyond fed up with our meddling city council. They are such idiots.

If the Scion hotel proposed at 32-33 stories gets blocked (and any other towers that have been proposed or could have been built in these proposed CVCs) that is a loss. If the site plan was already approved then I hope the city gets sued. City council never stops talking about affordability but then ties up proposals that would give much needed supply to keep rents & home prices closer to equilibrium in permitting review for over a year in most cases (NO other major city in Texas does this). Oh, that's right, now as a developer you can pay a large fee to have permitting review expidited. On top of having to contribute to various politically-interests (like Parks & Rec or Aff Housing) if you're not developing Apartments, in which case now you have to include at least 10% of units at less than market rate or you won't even get approved. It is basically bribery and extortion....just to accomplish what is set out in the city's master plan anyway. Ridiculous!!!

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

[ATXPhil]

For those of you wondering:

There are already over 30 defined CVCs, only 4 of which were put in place by the State of Texas, all others by the City of Austin.

Related story demonstrating the truly unbelievable incompetence of our council members:

Some of you may remember that the water intake facility constructed for the Waller Creek Tunnel near Waterloo Park/12th Street was approved by council, then well into construction it was later determined that the height of the facility would block a CVC so they delayed the project by over a year and spent a bunch of taxpayer money fixing their own mistake.

WHY DO WE KEEP RE-ELECTING THESE F****** MORONS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[The ATX]

Sadly, Austin's local government is embracing a Californian view on affordable housing. Sound bites and headlines have become more important than the logic of supply and demand. Developers are being blamed for creating expensive properties instead of market forces, so stopping development is a good headline. And if we can get a developer to pay a large fee for creating 5 "affordable" units in their project, everybody "wins". Never mind the fact that 5 units is insignificant and is nothing but a headline, and the extra costs added to the construction of a residential building means the remaining units are thus made even more unaffordable.

[wwmiv]

We should simply create a city-wide law that deals with the problem:

(insert % here) of units in every (a or b) development be given at (insert x here) share of (c or d) (e or f) (g or h), (insert exemptions here)

where:

a: multi-family rental and multi-family condo
b: multi-family rental only

c: city-wide
d: neighborhood

e: median
f: mean

g: (affordable for) income level
h: market rate rental price

The goal should be to redistribute poverty such that we don't cluster poverty in any one location. That way, all schools are dealt with and funded equally (because property taxes would eventually equalize). And thus, the poorest among us would get good education regardless of location. Of course, this is only a regional solution, not one that can or should be expropriated to the state or federal government.

[ATXPhil]

Sadly, Austin's local government is embracing a Californian view on affordable housing. Sound bites and headlines have become more important than the logic of supply and demand. Developers are being blamed for creating expensive properties instead of market forces, so stopping development is a good headline. And if we can get a developer to pay a large fee for creating 5 "affordable" units in their project, everybody "wins". Never mind the fact that 5 units is insignificant and is nothing but a headline, and the extra costs added to the construction of a residential building means the remaining units are thus made even more unaffordable.

You and I are on the same page, ATX. It is sad, and very counter productive.
:cheers:

[ATXPhil]

We should simply create a city-wide law that deals with the problem:

(insert % here) of units in every (a or b) development be given at (insert x here) share of (c or d) (e or f) (g or h), (insert exemptions here)...

The goal should be to redistribute poverty such that we don't cluster poverty in any one location. That way, all schools are dealt with and funded equally (because property taxes would eventually equalize). And thus, the poorest among us would get good education regardless of location. Of course, this is only a regional solution, not one that can or should be expropriated to the state or federal government.

Sorry, wwmiv, I could not disagree more. The state's Robin Hood rule already deals with making sure that schools in poverty districts receive additional funding to bridge the gap in property tax values from schools that are well-funded or over-funded. Social engineering on any level should be discouraged. In fact, I would argue that letting the markets operate in unadulterated capitalism would yield better results. Capitalistic markets ALWAYS correct themselves over time. A great example is the micro-unit development underway on the Eastside (I believe it's on East 5th). The developer saw a need for housing that is more affordable than the $1,800+ rents being charged at most new developments in Austin's core so they are building smaller units with rents that will be around $1,000 so people who would not qualify at $1,800 rents can qualify (without city or Federal subsidies) for their product and still enjoy living in a walkable, Central location.

I work for a local real estate investment firm here in town (we do some development too, but no high-rises) and can tell you first hand how difficult the city makes doing business these days. Many firms like mine recognize that there is a high-demand niche in the market for units that are not over-amenitized and not A++ luxury product. The demand is much higher, meaning that lease up is achieved much more quickly than a luxury product which then means we can sell the project when it is stabilized in a shorter amount of time while also delivering at a lower cots because we're not set on putting granite, quartz, marble, travertine tile, etc. in our developments. The combination of lower upfront cost and exiting in a much faster timeframe means that we can achieve returns that are just as good (or better) than some of the luxury developments. Returns to investors are boosted significantly by achieving a capital event (sale or refinance) in a shorter amount of time. So this is REALLY a "win-win" in that provides a quality, lower-tier product at more affordable rents to the market with a lower-risk investment to us and a shorter hold period.

And trust me when I say many developers are wary of Austin's ability to continue absorbing luxury product given the slow down in job growth and the staggering amount of supply of luxury product that has hit the market in the last 5 years. I strongly believe you will see more development geared towards middle class and low-income tenants in the next several years since it is an underserved market in Austin. This will occur without the city having to force the issue because of natural supply & demand economics. Again, the markets will always correct themselves over time...if the city doesn't interfere...I'm sure that the Brackenridge development for instance will deliver medical office space, housing and hotel space that will interact well with the neighborhood and be complimentary to the Medical School Complex without the city dictating what should be built there. That is the highest and best use of the property which developers are very well aware of and what the market will best embrace there.

On that note, I just read an ABJ article that quoted one of the Central Health representatives saying they were not made aware that a new CVC was being proposed through the project. Our city does not communicate very well either....

[hereinaustin]

Sorry, wwmiv, I could not disagree more. The state's Robin Hood rule already deals with making sure that schools in poverty districts receive additional funding to bridge the gap in property tax values from schools that are well-funded or over-funded. Social engineering on any level should be discouraged. In fact, I would argue that letting the markets operate in unadulterated capitalism would yield better results. Capitalistic markets ALWAYS correct themselves over time. A great example is the micro-unit development underway on the Eastside (I believe it's on East 5th). The developer saw a need for housing that is more affordable than the $1,800+ rents being charged at most new developments in Austin's core so they are building smaller units with rents that will be around $1,000 so people who would not qualify at $1,800 rents can qualify (without city or Federal subsidies) for their product and still enjoy living in a walkable, Central location.

I work for a local real estate investment firm here in town (we do some development too, but no high-rises) and can tell you first hand how difficult the city makes doing business these days. Many firms like mine recognize that there is a high-demand niche in the market for units that are not over-amenitized and not A++ luxury product. The demand is much higher, meaning that lease up is achieved much more quickly than a luxury product which then means we can sell the project when it is stabilized in a shorter amount of time while also delivering at a lower cots because we're not set on putting granite, quartz, marble, travertine tile, etc. in our developments. The combination of lower upfront cost and exiting in a much faster timeframe means that we can achieve returns that are just as good (or better) than some of the luxury developments. Returns to investors are boosted significantly by achieving a capital event (sale or refinance) in a shorter amount of time. So this is REALLY a "win-win" in that provides a quality, lower-tier product at more affordable rents to the market with a lower-risk investment to us and a shorter hold period.

And trust me when I say many developers are wary of Austin's ability to continue absorbing luxury product given the slow down in job growth and the staggering amount of supply of luxury product that has hit the market in the last 5 years. I strongly believe you will see more development geared towards middle class and low-income tenants in the next several years since it is an underserved market in Austin. This will occur without the city having to force the issue because of natural supply & demand economics. Again, the markets will always correct themselves over time...if the city doesn't interfere...I'm sure that the Brackenridge development for instance will deliver medical office space, housing and hotel space that will interact well with the neighborhood and be complimentary to the Medical School Complex without the city dictating what should be built there. That is the highest and best use of the property which developers are very well aware of and what the market will best embrace there.

On that note, I just read an ABJ article that quoted one of the Central Health representatives saying they were not made aware that a new CVC was being proposed through the project. Our city does not communicate very well either....

I agree 100%. It's really the market manipulation that forces developers to do things a certain way. The only reason for all the luxury products in our market today is due to the way the city artificially influences the market with its FAR ratios, height limits, CVCs, parking requirements, affordable housing requirements, etc. These city efforts aren't innocent and ultimately serve to force particular types of developments over others.

Even if we only required certain "common sense" things from our developers, our city would naturally develop into a surprisingly affordable and equitable place. It's in the effort to be in control that our city is screwing itself over, just like many other large cities have done before.

[The ATX]

IIRC One Two East had 297 AFFORDABLE senior housing units when it was first announced - not to mention a grocery store that would have benefited the entire neighborhood. But the NIMBYs and and their favorite city council member ignored that fact because the building was a little bit taller than zoning allowed. This is in itself proof that the city cares more about protecting high real estate prices over affordable housing. But I think the developer should have done a much better job in in promoting that project as an affordable housing project with local media. Before One Two East was killed, I remember seeing a banner that said say no to One Two East on the balcony on the top floor of a neighboring mid-rise apartment building. Talk about hypocrisy.

[drummer]

That sort of thing makes me sad.

[ATXPhil]

Yep. The council member that proposed the four CVC extensions that may possibly impact the Brackenridge development is Ora Houston (surprise, surprise). She said it is in the interest of "equality" so that East Austin residents can have the same Capitol views as people in other parts of the city. As ATX pointed out, "equality" is one of the nice soundbites our politicians use to justify their bullshit proposals. Read between the lines, this is being done to limit height and density just East of the highway to appease the NIMBYs that killed the One Two East project and other NIMBYs that are keeping the Plaza Saltillo office tower from getting approval up to 125' (which would mean a 10-story tower could be built). I believe the approval for the PS project was capped at 70' (6 stories). All of East Central Austin is going to be a painfully identical 5-6 stories for blocks upon blocks upon blocks, with the current restrictions which isn't protecting anyone's views in the long run...Ora Houston's proposal was heavily backed by Kathie Tovo who is an old-guard Austinite that HATES development and growth, fighting it at every chance she gets at City Hall. So I'm going to say again - WHY DO WE KEEP RE-ELECTING THESE F****** MORONS!?!?!?!?

[wwmiv]

Sorry, wwmiv, I could not disagree more. The state's Robin Hood rule already deals with making sure that schools in poverty districts receive additional funding to bridge the gap in property tax values from schools that are well-funded or over-funded. Social engineering on any level should be discouraged. In fact, I would argue that letting the markets operate in unadulterated capitalism would yield better results. Capitalistic markets ALWAYS correct themselves over time. A great example is the micro-unit development underway on the Eastside (I believe it's on East 5th). The developer saw a need for housing that is more affordable than the $1,800+ rents being charged at most new developments in Austin's core so they are building smaller units with rents that will be around $1,000 so people who would not qualify at $1,800 rents can qualify (without city or Federal subsidies) for their product and still enjoy living in a walkable, Central location.

I work for a local real estate investment firm here in town (we do some development too, but no high-rises) and can tell you first hand how difficult the city makes doing business these days. Many firms like mine recognize that there is a high-demand niche in the market for units that are not over-amenitized and not A++ luxury product. The demand is much higher, meaning that lease up is achieved much more quickly than a luxury product which then means we can sell the project when it is stabilized in a shorter amount of time while also delivering at a lower cots because we're not set on putting granite, quartz, marble, travertine tile, etc. in our developments. The combination of lower upfront cost and exiting in a much faster timeframe means that we can achieve returns that are just as good (or better) than some of the luxury developments. Returns to investors are boosted significantly by achieving a capital event (sale or refinance) in a shorter amount of time. So this is REALLY a "win-win" in that provides a quality, lower-tier product at more affordable rents to the market with a lower-risk investment to us and a shorter hold period.

And trust me when I say many developers are wary of Austin's ability to continue absorbing luxury product given the slow down in job growth and the staggering amount of supply of luxury product that has hit the market in the last 5 years. I strongly believe you will see more development geared towards middle class and low-income tenants in the next several years since it is an underserved market in Austin. This will occur without the city having to force the issue because of natural supply & demand economics. Again, the markets will always correct themselves over time...if the city doesn't interfere...I'm sure that the Brackenridge development for instance will deliver medical office space, housing and hotel space that will interact well with the neighborhood and be complimentary to the Medical School Complex without the city dictating what should be built there. That is the highest and best use of the property which developers are very well aware of and what the market will best embrace there.

On that note, I just read an ABJ article that quoted one of the Central Health representatives saying they were not made aware that a new CVC was being proposed through the project. Our city does not communicate very well either....

Your fundamental mistake is to (a) assume that markets correct themselves to remedy any form of segregation, (b) to assume that my primary concern was about education policy, and (c) believing that I am motivated by lack of supply to lower income as a normative concern rather than the normative concern I actually do have: the distribution of where the supply for lower income units is located geographically.

In fact, my primary concern is the geographic concentration of poverty which has significant negative systemic ramifications, only ONE of which is unequal education --- which Robin Hood seeks to remedy. However, the Robin Hood remedy is only a band aid and does not solve the underlying problem: the fact that poor people are geographically isolated from rich people. My aim is squarely at the underlying problem, rather than creating a band aid to cover up the problem: by redistributing where poor people live, so that they are not concentrated in any one particular area. In other words, we get rid of the "ghetto-ization" of systemic poverty.

[H2O]

We should simply create a city-wide law that deals with the problem:

(insert % here) of units in every (a or b) development be given at (insert x here) share of (c or d) (e or f) (g or h), (insert exemptions here)

where:

a: multi-family rental and multi-family condo
b: multi-family rental only

c: city-wide
d: neighborhood

e: median
f: mean

g: (affordable for) income level
h: market rate rental price

The goal should be to redistribute poverty such that we don't cluster poverty in any one location. That way, all schools are dealt with and funded equally (because property taxes would eventually equalize). And thus, the poorest among us would get good education regardless of location. Of course, this is only a regional solution, not one that can or should be expropriated to the state or federal government.

A city-wide law could not be put in place because inclusionary zoning is illegal in the State of Texas. It would require a change of policy (and ruling party) at the state level before that could even be considered.

[wwmiv]

Inclusionary zoning is illegal in Texas? Wow. That's sad.

[ATXPhil]

I don't want to get into a long political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about Brackenridge so I'm going to stop on that front...

On the note of Brackenridge, if there is ONE project that I think council would allow for higher FARs (especially if they wipe out half the density potential with a CVC extension) our of any proposed project right now it is probably this one. There is a stigma attached to the Medical School Complex in town. If the group selected puts a proposal together that brings street level interaction with the neighborhood like the farmer's market in the renderings, coupled with rental housing units, medical-oriented office space to compliment the Medical Complex and possibly a world-class hotel operation (like a Ritz-Carlton) I could actually see the city approving increased FARs without as many strings attached. Hopefully we'll get at least one building even taller than "up to 40 stories" in the end.

[wwmiv]

There is a stigma attached to the Medical School Complex in town.

And what data do you have to support this assertion?

None, because that data doesn't exist.

[The ATX]

And what data do you have to support this assertion?

None, because that data doesn't exist.

In certain circles there is some resentment that local taxes were used to pay for something that U.T. should have done on their own dime.

[wwmiv]

In certain circles there is some resentment that local taxes were used to pay for something that U.T. should have done on their own dime.

What circles? Who? Where?

Can we stop speaking in innuendo and actually provide the info?

[The ATX]

What circles? Who? Where?

Can we stop speaking in innuendo and actually provide the info?

I had a boss once that demanded that everything had to be immediately available in a spreadsheet or a Power Point presentation before he could make a decision. He sucked, and lost his job because he lacked the common sense and intuition needed to make quick business decisions. Whether or not that's applicable to this discussion is debatable. But you are obviously an academic who relies on such things and I'm guessing ATXPhil not so much. In either case I'm not taking sides, just making an observation based on my personal experience. :)

[wwmiv]

I had a boss once that demanded that everything had to be immediately available in a spreadsheet or a Power Point presentation before he could make a decision. He sucked, and lost his job because he lacked the common sense needed to make quick business decisions. Whether or not that's applicable to this discussion is debatable. But you are obviously an academic who relies on such things and I'm guessing ATXPhil not so much. In either case I'm not taking sides, just making an observation based on my personal experience. :)

It's not, and although I am an academic (who has plenty of private sector employment experience, thank you very much -- nor have I ever been fired from a position. In fact, the opposite: I've been promoted at every place I've ever worked) I don't need data available in a spreadsheet or powerpoint presentation to come to a decision or viewpoint.

Rather, I was simply pointing out (perhaps inartfully) that there really hasn't been any vocal opposition anywhere to the new medical school. There's pretty much NO evidence that anyone can point to in support of the idea of some mythical opposition, because that evidence doesn't exist.

Don't come at me bruh.

[The ATX]

I'm not coming at you bruh. :) I think we both we agree that public money for this project was not a bad thing, even though U.T. could have done this on their own. Apple could have built their North Austin campus without help from the tax payers as well. But incentives is how the game is played.

[lzppjb]

It's entirely possible that both Phil and ATX, who live in/around Austin, have come into contact with people that have these feelings re: Brackenridge. There wouldn't be any data to provide like a link to an article.

[Novacek]

It's entirely possible that both Phil and ATX, who live in/around Austin, have come into contact with people that have these feelings re: Brackenridge. There wouldn't be any data to provide like a link to an article.

There have been a few articles around at least one opposed group (probably a small minority)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-09-16/central-health-faces-questions-over-budget-transparency/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-12-02/fred-lewis-friends-of-the-poor-go-to-war-on-central-health/
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2017-02-17/dell-med-school-debate-over-use-of-funds-continues/

https://communityimpact.com/austin/education/2016/11/14/central-health-critics-question-money-uts-dell-medical-school/