Or the original design for Waller Park Place.

https://i.imgur.com/AFL7mhD.jpg

Yeah, those aren't bad. Those mechanical roof screens would look great with LEDs lining or "ringing" those screens and on the columns holding them up. And then carry the theme by doing the same to the roofline on the arena. That tower nearest to Congress looks to be close to 500 feet. I counted ~43 floors

I thought there was a 100' setback from the lake? So these would never get built. That's why that apartment project Water Marq had to stay back and could only go like 60' high. They failed to get the variances.

Replace the arena with a multi-use (soccer) stadium and...go...

This rejected Gensler South Shore proposal and the runner up Page Brackenridge site proposal are making me all sad with "what might been" syndrome.

Here are some more South Shore coulda' beens:

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...500_s_4_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...520_s_4_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...520_s_4_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...533_s_4_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...713_s_4_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8..._2230_s_2.webp
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8...520_s_4_2.webp
https://www.gensleraustinten.com/

^Really nice looking building forms but I would be happier to see just one of those, plus a variety of other designs in the area.

The sad thing is these coulda buildouts frequently are nicer and more grand than what actually ends up getting built.

That's sadly true. I really hope the winning South Shore and Brackenridge projects won't be disappointments.
I like Endeavor's work, but I think South Shore will only turn out as nice as the City and the South of the river Nimbys let it - which has me worried.
I am more worried about Brackenridge. Wexford's portfolio is awful from a skyscraper and architectural viewpoint. They build functional research and academic facilities which is of course what Central Health wants.

Oh, my gosh. I love the connectivity there to the hike & bike trail. I'm assuming that's a continuation of the boardwalk further east. I really like that a lot. I hope whatever happens there hangs onto that idea.

I was thinking the same thing. I like the designs, but I'm always not too much of a fan of twins or multiple buildings of similar design because for me it starts to look too much like an office park.

I also don't like how the driveway penetrates the development. There should be a garage entrance on Riverside and that be it. Let the interior of the project be all pedestrian with a grand plaza for navigating. With a driveway that loops through the development, you're inevitably going to have traffic entering there to turn around on Riverside. That would complicate that intersection and put unnecessary traffic through the development. Besides, what about the bat viewing area? There needs to be either a lawn area there or a plaza.

https://austin.towers.net/putting-te...elopment-plan/

A quality update over at Towers. No news on The Statesman site specifically, but lots of nuggets about a prospective TIF and the progress of the Regulating Plan. Also this single sentence graf regarding affordable housing in South Shore: "The city plans to partner with a non-profit to redevelop land at One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road."

https://austin.towers.net/wp-content...p-addendum.jpg

https://austin.towers.net/wp-content...ing-Vision.jpg

The last I heard was they were thinking about turning the parking lot facing S 1st St into some sort of affordable housing apartments.

One Texas Center being redeveloped - well, that makes some sense about the files I'd found about them moving the city's development services to the Delco Center in East Austin - at least, that's the location of the address that was attached to the permit. The odd thing is they're currently doing some remodeling in One Texas Center. I wonder if that building could be repurposed as residential eventually?

Originally, One Texas Center was supposed to have a twin.

I don't like the caps they place, only one small section can only go up to 400 feet. What is with Austin and 400 feet!? I say go higher. When the city limits height, they ultimately limit the full potential of these lots. I don't mind planning how an area should develop and sure there should be some height cap exceptions but in area where they can build the highest, why cap it at all?

X-posting sammyk's post from the update thread. This is pretty nice. There are renderings with the story.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...statesman-site

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9Tm8APX...jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9Tm8ASX...jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9Tm8ARW...jpg&name=large

Wow. This will be a bloody battle in the next couple of years.

From said Statesman article -

Yes! Oh, man, I love that pedestrian bridge, and the continuation of the boardwalk would be amazing. That lawn on the shore of the river would also be great. Public spaces like these are the mark of a great city.

I Know this stuff takes time but gosh i want it all built out yesterday! When was it, ~2008 when we saw the first plans for Seaholm/green water treatment plant unveiled? And it's just now being finished about 10 years later....so I suppose it'll be a similar timeline, perhaps longer, to when we see the Statesman site and South Shore built out.