Okay that's fine and all but it's just one restaurant on one corner. It would be nice to have a clothing store or something else instead since there are already a few restaurants on Rainey. I guess it's replacing one establishment that was lost which is better than nothing.

Still I hope this building becomes the poster child for what not to do in the Rainey Street District from now on.

Anyone know what the rents will be there? I'm sure the appearance of it is the result of it being targeted for affordability. That is of course a wonderful thing. My biggest complaint is it not having more retail. That neighborhood now is a mad house of activity. The auto traffic is possibly the worst in downtown. The neighborhood really needs more street level attractions to get people out of their cars and walking instead of driving in where there's very little parking anyway.

It's a BS suburban development in scope and style.
It's a perfect example of a generic developer ploping down a cookie cutter Apartment complex in an opportune place.
Mowing under the very scene they hoped to benefit from .
If wanting to ensure the vibe of Austin survives is being "Bratty".....
Then Count me in.

Kevin.... with truly all due respect. ( truly!) Design and affordabilty do not go hand in hand. It is truly just a boring design..... with no open space or retail.

:cheers:

You guys are forgetting this was just a strip of homes that offered no community use (and were zoned to be bulldozed by neighborhood consent). Start here in streetview shots taken March 2011 and walk to the end of Rainy. What are you missing? What was taken away?

There was one bar (well, two, if you want to count "white house"). They are not "mowing down" any other establishments. This is not dramatically affecting the area--if anything it is elevating it from the abandoned homes that were there before.

Maybe you guys are reacting like this since Lustre Pearl is closed? I could understand that, but at least be truthful to your argument, not some rosy eyed version of what you thought used to inhabit that block.

LOL what? You're comparing this spot to a transit center? Rainy is about as opposite from this as possible. There is no public transit and incredibly poor auto access, not to mention, it doesn't even mesh with the the downtown grid.

And "prison/fortress?" Are there ramparts and a moat in the site plan? :koko:

Just so everybody remembers what we are actually talking about.

Don't shoot the messenger. I agree that more than one storefront would have been better for a project that takes up so much acreage, but at least it's not completely devoid of retail.

As has been mentioned before, the only "retail" spot that was really "lost" was the Lustre Pearl. So it is essentially a one for one swap. I put lost in quotes because they are opening a new Lustre Pearl right across the street. The original Lustre Pearl house is reopening on East Ceasar Chavez. So, in the end, it was not really lost.

I'm not sure having a bunch of residential units on the ground floor in the heart of what has become a busy entertainment district is the best of ideas. Surely, some of the residents there will complain about the noise despite knowing what they are getting into. But all in all, I think this is a decent project. It could have been better, yes, but it's decent. Not every project can be perfect, iconic, and completely utilize the CVCs. Economics are what ultimately determine what will be built.

Like most here, I would have rather seen the original vision of 50 story skyscrapers come to fruition. But the original vision for this property was that of the developers of Waller Park Place just a couple blocks away. If they hadn't sold this off, we might not have Waller Park Place. WPP may end up being one of those iconic projects that everyone around here pines for. I think downtown Austin comes out on top in the grand scheme of this thing. (I realize they haven't started construction on WPP yet and it's not guaranteed, but I see little reason to doubt that it will actually come to fruition.)

YOU are so right. There IS incredibly poor auto access, and this project will make it MUCH worse. That is exactly the point I was making, and you are turning my comparison around to say exactly the opposite of what I meant. You have heard of Newspeak, haven't you? Well, don't try it on me. It's not going to work! Anybody can look up the developer and look at the many developments that they have, in the many cities that they have them in, and if you put them all together into one huge city, would YOU want to live there? There would be no moats there, there would just be miles and miles of ugly concrete. No trees. No open spaces. Moats would IMPROVE a place like that! This developer is like the Walmart of Developers. Build a huge, ugly project as quickly as you can and hurry on to the next one, before the complaints get too loud and the opposition gets too powerful. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a paid poster by this developer to rip apart all the concerns that everybody has brought up about this project. People have said that this would be appropriate out in the 'burbs, but we're talking about prime downtown real estate next to Waller Creek, which we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on so we can have this neighborhood, next to Town Lake, and we plop THIS down into it?!? To me, it is just Preposterous. Obviously this developer has a lot of power and deep pockets. I'll just end it right there, before I get myself into too much trouble!

I did a thesis study a few years back in which I made my case as to why density is better for the environment than sprawl but it went a lot deeper than that.

It's not about density for density's sake, any kind of density will not do. It has to be responsible density with an emphasis of reducing not only it's carbon footprint, it also has to minimize it's rainfall runoff, it's impact on traffic (whether or not it's car centric or if it gives people the opportunity to utilize mass transit) and if it takes advantage of solar energy by having solar panels or wind turbines. There are more but I'll just list those to keep this post as short as possible.

My point to bringing all this up is the Millennium is a poor example of responsible density especially when it comes to minimizing water runoff. Can you imagine the area that thing's roof covers not to mention the giant parking garage in the middle and what kind of runoff it will generate? It's going to be a ton and that water is going to be rushing at very high speeds into the gutters.

You ask what does this have to do with anything? Well I have to wonder how Rainey street and the nearby area will handle that added runoff once it's complete? You bet it's going to be altered, it already has.

The same thing will happen once people move in and you'll see a sudden influx of new cars. Granted not everyone moving there will have a car but we all saw the size of that garage. That project is car centric not pedestrian or mass transit centric. It's just a huge blob and other than adding residential population to the area I'm not sure if it will be any good at all for the future of Rainey Street. I guess time will tell but there's a whole lot more wrong with it than there is right.

No offense, but an undergraduate or master's thesis is rarely serious research. Unless it is peer reviewed and published, I don't buy those findings. And, well, the entirety of the public policy literature on these issues suggests the absolute opposite.

Absolutely any large-scale project in Austin does an analysis of run-off and requires rainfall detention features.

Millenium would have already done theirs.

There is nothing we can do since it's already getting built. Let's just see how it does once it opens up to give our final review of it. Also if this is a monstrosity like some people give it, what about The Milago that was built 10 years ago?

https://greggklar.files.wordpress.co...ago-austin.jpg

I'm sure the Milago gets a pass because it was built in a previous era... :koko:

The Millennium brand is one division of the Dinerstein Company. The Millenium developments all seem to be located in neighborhoods with fairly urban environments such as the Westheimer/Galleria area of Houston, Rainey Street in Austin, and the downtown part of The Woodlands in Houston. They also own or plan to build additional projects (including one high rise) in inner city Houston and in communities such as Santa Monica in the LA area, Mission Valley in San Diego, and Woodland Hills in the LA/San Fernando Valley. They claim to be interested in building LEED certified apartment complexes in areas that are walkable and have access to shopping, entertainment, and good transit options. They also claim to be environmentally sensitive and loaded with outdoor amenities. The video of one of the Houston properties suggests use of a lavish roof deck in addition to a courtyard swimming pool area. The now-leasing Houston property on Westheimer boasts at least one upscale restaurant at street level. Millennium appears to be Dinerstein's luxury brand. The Dinerstein company also owns a large number of other less luxurious properties most of which are student housing complexes. The development in Lubbock mentioned in an earlier post is a student housing complex and is not part of the Millennium brand.

Here is a link to the Millennium web site. http://www.themillennium.com/

Here is a link to a map of all Dinerstein properties including the Millennium brand, http://dinersteincos.com/our-developments/

Or the eight story block-occupying fortress built around 2000 that sits catty corner from City Hall. And then there is the dual cluster of four story buildings built around the same time between 5th and 3rd near the intersection with Bowie. Nobody complains about these buildings, and they all actually add a nice bit of density and pedestrian activity to the area.

I too am surprised by the amount of negativity for this project when this -- similar in height and size, is just down the street. Correct me if I am wrong, but The Milago also has no retail. This architecture style may not be as great as others, but it's not bad either. There's one in downtown, and a few others in West Campus; this would be a more viable argument against the project if there was a ton of mid-rises like this all over the city (like there's in Houston and Dallas). Even though it's much preferred, not everything is going to be (or has to be) a high-rise. ;)

Here's a rendering of the retail component.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/19062...eet-Austin-TX/

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/506/2...8db52e37_b.jpg

The style of the building may not be taken into account when concerning the rent as the building is being marketed as luxury apartments. Cost per month should average with everything else in the area, maybe a little lower since it's a mid-rise.

Tell me what studies indicate that a project like Millinium is a more responsible development than say the Austonian for example? Who's carbon footprint is going to be smaller, who's runoff is going to be less?

I disagree whole heartedly with you about all public policy literature suggests the absolute opposite. That isn't true at all. There are different views sure but that's why this debate is going on. You can't say that a large footprint stubby building is going to outdo a skinny tall tower with a small footprint.


My point is we shouldn't accept this sort of building in the Rainey Street District for future development and I think the majority of forumers are on the same page with this thinking.