Pretty much this. The building looking pretty good and taking full use of the CVC with ground retail are the important parts. Yes it's a downside that there are so many drive-throughs, but retail is dynamic and will change over time. Overall this is a great addition. We need as much ground retail as possible at Republic Park.

re:3Eleven: Love that almost all the roof space is used for residents benefit! Nice.!

I love Bowie's rooftops and overall shape. I don't like the facade as much as the previous render, but it might just be the picture isn't showing the reflections of all that glass.

Computer modeling a la this never looks as nice as detailed renders created for marketing purposes. The real product is always closer to the middle, with high quality products closer to the marketing renders and cheaper products closer to the models.

What are you suggesting? Are you arguing against more renters? If so, the majority of those who create Austin’s fabric are renters (~54%). In fact, Austin has the nation’s 6th highest renter-to-owner ratio. Those above Austin are:

#1 New York City (~66% renters)
#2 Boston (~63%)
#3 San Francisco (~62%)
#4 Los Angeles (~61%)
#5 Dallas (~55%)

Those rounding out the Top 25 are:

#T-7 Chicago (~53%)
#T-7 Houston (~53%)
#T-9 San Diego (~51%)
#T-9 Columbus (~51%)
#11 Seattle (~50%)
#12 Baltimore (~49%)
#13 Denver (~48%)
#14 Memphis (~47%)
#15 Detroit (~46%)
#16 Philadelphia (~45%)
#T-17 Indianapolis (~44%)
#T-17 Nashville (~44%)
#19 Charlotte (~43%)
#T-20 Phoenix (~41%)
#T-20 San Antonio (~41%)
#T-20 San Jose (~41%)
#T-20 El Paso (~41%)
#24 Ft. Worth (~40%)
#25 Jacksonville (~38%)

FYI: The U.S. average is ~33% renters vs. ~67% owners.

I wish this would happen today. I think I-35 through downtown is so ugly.
http://impactnews.com/articles/i-35-...plan-proposed/

THIS IS THE BEST OPTION EVER and EVERYONE here needs to write letters to all of our city councilmen and women AND the mayor today. Sit down right now and write. I'd write three rounds of three letters per each person to really get the message to sink in.

I suggested this just about a week ago.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2995

btw...$550 million? I'd rather have this than the rail project for the same price.

We can do both. In fact, if we do this, we could embed north-south rail above.

Big problem though: the current rail alignment east-west would have to be shut down in order for a project like this to move forward. The last stop would have to be just before the interstate, effectively making the current rail useless (not that it already wasn't) for ~3 years.

Also, it doesn't just open up land immediately above 35, it would open up significant chunks of land immediately east of 35 to expand the central business district in a cohesive way.

$550 million isn't even that much when you think about it. Apparently the new Bush presidential library in Dallas cost $550 million. Think of what you could do with all that new land in downtown. You could even build a presidential library on it...

Using the middle for the N/S rail would be perfect. Surround it on both sides with CBD. The ROI is obvious.

I thought this was already proposed a few years ago. Even that one future skyline illustration from Imagine Austin in 2039 shows I-35 covered up. I'm too lazy to look up that photo but I'm sure it's there.

It's been proposed at many stages, but this time now that the state is serious about fixing the situation it may garner some currency.

I did a quick estimate on the acres this project would add to downtown. The I35 ROW from the river to 15th is roughly 65 acres. That's a very rough estimate.

I mean, it's a very positive idea, but I want to see a full I-35/130 swap. I want to see the current I-35 turned completely into a toll road and have 130 be free. Until that happens, the trucks are not going to take 130. They're going to keep blasting through our city with no regard for anybody who lives here, clogging the streets, driving like assholes. Maybe we could have a system set up whereby Austin metro residents don't have to pay very much (maybe $10 a month, like Spotify or Netflix) and only people passing through Austin have to pay full price.

Even with that, though, there would still be a need to bury the highway. Maybe this is a step in direction of my grand vision? It would certainly do a lot for the downtown area.

Reply to general argument: simply do both. In fact, they'll have to do both (I.E. re-route traffic onto 130) in order to fix 35 downtown.

Fix: have a single toll each coming in on the north side and south side that is sufficient to re-route significant portions of traffic onto 130. Unfortunately, that would suck for alot of people in our southern suburbs, but it is the most realistic vision.

I don't like the idea of charging people in the metro area an arm and a leg to use the road. Maybe the city could strike a deal with surrounding municipalities whereby those residents wouldn't have to pay any more than Austinites. I don't want to tax commuters. A lot of people live so far out because they can't afford to live (well) in Austin. They don't have a lot of money. So it would be a tax on the poor. I just want to attach a punitive charge for people who are using the highway to pass through Austin instead of taking 130.

I-35 is the main corridor for traffic from Mexico into the United States and vice versa. People always think that the traffic is because of the native population (and to a large degree it is), but I think it gets clogged up to a standstill because of the added traffic of people traveling through.

Though if we do have to charge commuters more to use the road I guess one benefit would be creating more of an incentive to live in the city proper. Unfortunately, that would mean more demand, which means higher cost of living still.

Like has been mentioned before and it's something I like...

If a car passes both 130 exits (north and south of town) on I-35 in a set amount of time (thru traffic), they get tolled. If they don't pass both, or it takes longer than a set time that accounts for slow traffic, then they are in-town traffic and would not be tolled.

That would hit truckers and travelers blasting through town, but not hit the wallets of locals and commuters.