After working there for two and a half years I find it one of the worst planned facilities of this type that I have seen, there are so many things that I would do differently if I was doing the site planning. One thing that I find ridiculous is the lack of connection between the Phase I and II portions withs Macy's closing one end and Dick's closing the other end with nothing but a huge parking lot between them, there should be an inviting, walkable connection. I took my car in for service at the Euro shop on Burnet & Braker and walked to the office, there is no sidewalk from Braker to Dillard's and no place open for them as the entry signs and landscaping block the natural path of where a sidewalk should be. It is nothing more than two separate outdoor malls and Simon runs the office buildings in the same manner. One day when I open up my own practice, it will not be in a similar type of location. It just seems to be a a shell of what it could be and I think it would still be that way when completed, it just is not as cohesive as it should be, definitely NOT a "second downtown" as some were claiming.

I tend to avoid it on all weekends unless I have a need to go to the office (like last weekend).

Regarding the sprawling parking lot between Macy's and Dick's, there are large LCRA electrical transmission lines running directly through this section. Perhaps it would have been hazardous to perform construction activities in this location. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the lack of pedestrian connectivity between the two phases.

Some of us here have been saying this all along - there is no chance that this area ever becomes a second downtown - it'll likely at some point maybe approach the density of the Triangle; yet still be less relevant overall.

I'd be interested in a clarification? I don't find the Triangle all that relevant to people that I know, most seem to go to Domain over Triangle. I would venture a guess the Domain if financially more relevant to the city in terms of sales, jobs and tax revenue???

In terms of activity per square foot, the Triangle has a hell of a lot more going on these days than does the Domain. Come down on a Farmers' Market night in the summer and check it out (or go on any night to the area around the pub/Galaxy).

I would rather work in the real downtown instead of a shopping mall, it was also cut my commute drastically.

the walkability within each phase of the domain is pretty good, but the walkability between the 2 phases is laughable, when considering how "pedestrian-friendly" it's supposed to be. even more laughable is the inability for pedestrians to access the domain. it disgusts me that the car culture smears what should be a wonderful development. so yeah, i agree it's planning is subpar. i just hope it evolves over the years into what it should have been in the first place.

Since we're on the subject of walk-ability, I'd like to set the record straight. There is nothing more walkable or bike-able about downtown than there is the Domain or Triangle. All are very pedestrian unfriendly. I can understand the Domain and Triangle not being pedestrian friendly because you're gonna have to drive to get to them, and both are surrounded by roads with cars traveling 60 MPH and faster.

But there is no excuse for downtown, as it is the epicenter of entertainment in Austin. I walk downtown and SoCo on a very regular basis, and if you are not on your guard, you can get run over. So really, if we can't even get Downtown figured out, how in the hell can we expect the Domain to get there?

In fact, I'd say Austin is no more pedestrian friendly than Houston or Dallas. Any politician that tells you otherwise is paying lip service.

I don't expect suburban centers to be walkable to them, but they sure should be walkable inside them.

Because The Domain was a "clean sheet" for the most part and could have been designed to be walkable internally and the connections to the "outside". At The Domain there are only a few buildings that were retained and they were not in locations that really impacted the movement of pedestrians. The largest impact of an existing building was the IBM building close to Braker and the Pickle light which did affect the immediate curve at that drive, but even that could have been resolved in a better way by giving up some of the parking on the west of the building and moving it to the east or north of the building. There is still absolutely no reason why a sidewalk could not have been extended to Braker or the landscaping/signage at least designed to where it would not impede the natural walking path along the road.


That is very true....

On a semi-related note, the long-proposed Cedar Park Town Center apparently is no longer planned as a vertical mixed-use district. The latest site plan shows a suburban setup of big box stores and garden apartments. A wasted opportunity.

Yuck. I hate to say it and be that way, but I try to avoid areas of our metro area like that.

Were you able to sense how surprised I was to hear it? This is the same exact pattern that happened with supposed TOD on Tri-Rail. Turns out people don't want to spend a premium to live near transit that isn't any good.

The "Downtown District," as city leaders refer to it, has been talked about and planned for well over a decade. The residential portion is mostly built-out ...which is basically a collection of DR Horton homes with back alleys/garages.

Here's a little background info and conceptual plans/renderings.

City of Cedar Park Town Center page:

http://www.cedarparktx.us/cp/page285299.aspx

More conceptual plans...

http://www.jerde.com/projects/project.php?id=41

http://www.jerde.com/media/images/ex...ull_mainst.jpg

http://www.jerde.com/media/images/te...info_model.jpg

I doubt that is what is going on in people minds. Rail transit is a low consideration in the majority of peoples minds. We live in Texas for heavens sake.... where trucks and SUV's RULE. If I was going to live way up north, I would want a big yard and a big house with a big garage - that is the Cedar Park real estate market, like it or not. Want to be able to resell you property in Cedar Park, you better have these amenities. The developer knows that, and he is going to RISK his investment by addressing the market's needs.

If I want to purchase a little space stacked up on top of other people, then I will live somewhere that it has potential resale value, but not in Cedar Park. Small market - high risk of losing value.

This area would be good for apartments, not condos. Were they originally planning condos or apartments on top of the retail? Is this totally shot down now?

The Cedar Park Town Center is not a TOD. It was planned long before MetroRail, and although it is adjacent to the rail line, there is no station there because Cedar Park is not in Cap Metro's service area. Even if there was a station there, it would be better categorized as Transit Adjacent Development, since the commercial area is across the lake from the tracks!

Yeah, sorry guys, I was confusing this thing with the Leander project that's also in crickets-chirping-ville (also not a TOD; a TAD at best).

I just found an updated site plan for the southern-half of the "town center" Apparently will include a Sprouts market and what looks like a Costco. Even better, the backs of the big boxes will 'face' Main Street! Just lovely.

Site plan from United Commercial Realty.

http://www.ucrrealty.com/photos/prop...20-%202010.pdf


http://images53.fotki.com/v535/photo...33/CPTC-vi.jpg

Anyway, sorry for taking this thread off-topic, but it's worth mentioning given the issues at The Domain.

^^^ Time will tell if this iteration of the plan comes to fruition. Given the state of the economy, I held on to hope that with the delay would ultimately result in a far more appropriate plan that had become watered down over time (now to this).

I don't know, this sure looks like TOD to me.

http://hcmaustin.com/properties/item...age-investment

Even if you subscribe to Todd Littman's narrow definition of TOD that it requires a certain level of transit service to qualify, it would be more appropriate to label the Leander TOD Transit Ready Development. Transit Adjacent Development (TAD) describes development that is adjacent to transit, but does not appropriately address it, by turning away from the station, or placing inappropriate land uses next to the station.

EDIT: I'm not sure this is the appropriate thread for this discussion.

Littman's 'narrow' definition also requires that it prioritize transit over parking; and the pictures you supply contradict what's on the ground there now anyways.

Finally, the basic common sense test ought to be this: does the presence of the transit allow for more successfully satisfied demand for density (and less parking) than other developments in the same area? In the case of the Red Line further down in Austin, we know this to not be the case - Crestview Station is less dense than the Triangle, for instance.