I agree, this better happen as envisioned. It is exactly how the city should be growing as Downtown continues to fill up, the South shore of the river is the logical area for core expansion. The neighborhood NAs gotta get it through their thick, narrow minded skulls that this is reality living in a fast growing city of this size and the fact that we are not going to slow down anytime soon.

Council approved going forward with a master plan for this area just this week, so there will be a lot more activity on this in a few months.

Anyone ever explained why they can't get rid of that silly and confusing cross thing?

Silly and confusing cross thing?

I think he's talking about the intersections of Barton Springs and Riverside. They form an X in the middle of that area.

It was mentioned on slide #117 in the presentation. It just said

So, there was some pretty extensive coverage on the future of the South Shore in the most recent City View episode.

The extensive involvement of current area residents always makes me nervous because I feel like these areas should be the habitat of all of us, not just those who can already afford to live there. That said, these talks are open to everybody, so maybe it's my fault if I don't take the initiative.

The American-Statesman has some renderings included with an article, but they're behind the pay wall. I don't have the paid subscription. Anyone care to save, host and post them?

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...popular_bottom

I agree-- Rainey is really underserved by transit, with this configuration it'll bring more people into the heart of Rainey and provide immense levels of connectivity between Rainey Street, the south shore, and the rest of the city core.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl....html?page=all
http://i.imgur.com/UUXun8m.jpg

A bit of what we've already seen, but then a bit more on the basic framework: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...l_reduced2.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/QrbwKCm.png

I think this is a valuable takeaway:

Personally I dislike the use of Portland's South Waterfront as a model for Austin's South Waterfront. My wife and I own a second home near Portland's South Waterfront.

The main problem in the comparison is that the PDX development is a monolithic build of a new district, reclaimed at once from some prior low-density use (AFAIK). It's a large, dense buildout, probably by one master developer. The result is something completely new, not organically developed within the character of the city.

I am pro-density, and not against such things in general, but PDX's version is cut off and separated from the rest of the city. It feels like a residential amusement park with tall buildings, some nice restaurants...and then you have to get in your car to get to real downtown or anywhere else.

The fabric of the old and new will surely expand and meld together, but we're not there yet. This is what makes this a troublesome comparison. The photos look great, the financial aspects will be appealing to developers, esp. if they can get the city to support the model.

Meanwhile, back in Austin, the South Waterfront is not a sleepy area yet to be reclaimed. It is a busy crossroads, that already is and will always be tied to downtown and South Congress. I'd prefer to see comparisons to downtown revitalization efforts that have encouraged/maximized private investment and density one structure at a time.

Also, just food for thought - the days of cheap dollars -might- be waning. QE tightening and future interest rate hikes may show that our boom has in part been fueled by cheap money for institutional investors. South Waterfront may not have the right properties available soon enough.

Jngreenlee has a point, the South Shore is not like say Green or Seaholm for example, it's already a bustling part of the city and it's neither a quiet empty place nor a neighborhood. I like the idea of improving the infrastructure, but rather than create large swaths of set development, the area should be built piece by piece depending on the particular needs and demands. The overall area can be guided to a specific outcome but if large parts are predesigned then that sets a cap on density right from the beginning. This area is basically an extension of Downtown. It needs to be treated as such whether the surrounding NIMBY's like it or not.

It needs some direction, though. We don't want another Rainey Street area with fugly parking garages and no street level retail.

I agree, guidelines should be set as to how the buildings should interact with the streetscape.

Am I the only one who thinks this would be a perfect spot for a new stadium that could host an MLS team in the future?
1. The MLS has stated that they are looking for their expansion teams to have a stadium downtown.
2. This is one of the last areas downtown that would be large enough to hold a stadium.
3. With a new bridge crossing the river at that location, it would be perfect for tying into and create public transportation options.
4. This stadium could be used for many other events and Austin needs a large concert venue downtown, especially with the Erwin Center closing in the future. leaving some (but not many) surface parking lots would keep areas for events like ROT Rally and others.
5. Many stadium projects now are built as mixed use developments, so you could have dense use around the stadium. Look at Detroit's plan for the new Red Wings stadium project. And Minnesota's new FB stadium
6. And finally... think about the potential views from the stadium...

The traffic that would cause

That PDF was awesome, informative and comprehensive. I have to say, my single favorite feature outlined was most detailed around pages 46-50.

The central "rambla" they intend to build is great for a number of reasons. It will give the South Shore area a unique and fantastic public space which is sorely lacking that far east on Riverside. If executed correctly, it could become an iconic space associated with the city. I imagine one would look straight down it and across the river to land their eye directly upon the to-be-built Waller Park Place and Fairmont projects. One might even catch an urban rail train crossing the river in the foreground. Basically, all kinds of awesome, a must-catch photo of Austin circa 2023 ;)

I agree with you. In fact I think they stated in a past article that the AAS site is one of the possibilities. I doubt traffic would be any worse than when there are other major events like at Auditorium Shores. If mass transit is done right then there shouldn't be a major traffic issue.

I'm with you on this! Austin is a great demographic fit for MLS and a downtown stadium is a must to land a franchise. I think just east of I-35 would work as well but I don't know if there is large enough tract that isn't already being developed/planned for development.

Welcome to SSP ClendonRoss, I take it your a soccer fan. Feel free to post any news or info regarding the Austin Aztex, please share it with us.

I found a few more renderings at a UT site.

Connecting Water to Water: A Sustainable Vision for Austin's South Central Waterfront District


https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=SLy_-0VT



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=syNhH4sR



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=up1OYedS



https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=Te79NCJe

Those arch bridges in the first rendering look to be I-35. That'd be a pretty cool aesthetic addition if they ever needed to replace the bridges. Also, I really like the smaller HEB concept as shown in the third rendering. As downtown densifies (as well as the south shore central area), that'd be a great addition.

I think that's supposed to be the bridge that connects the South Shore to Trinity Street on the North Shore.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore01.jpg



http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore02.jpg

I think the bridge went out with the bid last year?

There are a couple of interesting concepts shown but it's hard to take any of it seriously when they've included, in the second illustration, the annihilation of any trace of the hike-and-bike trail, along with the removal of all vegetation right down to the waterfront. I mean... how can their ideas be taken seriously if they're so divorced from reality?

https://soa.utexas.edu/sites/default...?itok=syNhH4sR

Can you imagine... "Yeah, we're going to just pave everything, concrete right up to the water, no trees, no trails, it's gonna be awesome." I guess they could move the trail up to Riverside at that spot. It's like something the Army Corps of Engineers would have come up with in 1960.

:previous: It's only along a small portion of the trail, though. (Look for the red mark.) The image is a screen shot of a pdf file on the same site where I found the renderings.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...g?t=1428779982

They might have considered it as a place where people could put their canoes/kayaks in the lake.

At any rate, it was done by one of several teams of students at UT so it may not happen.

I would actually advocate for a small section of the trail in that area to be more mixed use in its approach, just like this proposal gets at.

Those steps would make a good impromptu amphitheater if they'd include a stage/bandstand on the river side. Wouldn't be very comfortable in the day from May to September, though. Grand Rapids has a smaller version on their river. Design it right and you could enjoy a concert from the water, too. Probably a stupid idea.

It's a great idea. I really would love to monetize a stretch of the riverfront with patio restaurants and other commercial-esque promenades to take advantage of skyline views in this area. It would be easy to extend the boardwalk to go around so that we could keep the runners and cyclists unobstructed. It's this kind of grand thinking that would take this city to a truly world class level.

It's a stretch, but they could always do a sort of stage on a small barge or something and just bring it out when it's needed so there's not a bandstand/stage there all the time.

You could do it like San Antonio's riverwalk stage.

I'd be a fan of integrating shade into the area without blocking the skyline view. Perhaps they could take cues from the shade building used in the domain.

http://impactnews.com/downloads/2621...ering%2009.jpg

If the density is even close to that, I'll be happy. :slob:

I've never understood the desire for setbacks around Town Lake. What's the rub with height right along the water's edge? Maybe I've just never experienced negative effects. Looks awesome in Chicago.

Pretty sure someone spent a lot of time in trying to prevent that from ever happening :)

Here is a flyer regarding an upcoming presentation about waterfront development and the South Shore district, by a world-renowned expert on the subject: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...out4_flyer.pdf

Hopefully one or more of us will be able to attend and report back to the group.

Looks like the Statesman is now moving out of their site, or at least the printing

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...ress-ro/nk6Qk/

Good news (except for those laid off)... this is the first step to redeveloping that sweet spot. My guess is they will want to sell to get cash on hand considering that business model isn't working (digital newspaper subscrips). Hope they don't sell to an apartment builder. We need a public/private offer... time for that soccer stadium :)

Cox has some pretty deep pockets and a large broadband/cable operation to provide cash flow. I suspect they will not do a quick sale just to raise money, but I am sure that the parcel is now in play and attracting a lot of interest.

I can't see over the paywall, but the American-Statesman has a new article on this.

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...bird-la/nmKGw/

Try this link:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...3948020.735742

Thanks. I love this paragraph:

"Currently, the city paints a fairly dismal picture of the area. It is marred by poor public access, limited public green space, vast parking lots and aging, auto-oriented development. The wide, busy streets aren’t conducive to walking, biking or mass transit, and the surface stormwater runoff creates water-quality issues for Lady Bird Lake, the city says."

Every word of it is true, and it makes one realize that it would be nearly impossible to do anything with the South Shore that would fail to improve it, short of maybe a large fracking operation, oil refinery, or open-pit mine. It's exciting to imagine what may transpire in that zone, and how it will interact with the lake and downtown.

KXAN has a story with video about the South Shore vision. This is a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong term plan.

http://kxan.com/2015/09/03/new-beaut...ront-unveiled/

What I got from the video is that we're farther away from anything happening in the South Shore district than any of us ever imagined. One by one, the property owners will redevelop their properties, and the city will provide incentives for beautification, greenery, and walkability. That's about it. Did I miss anything?

You got it Tech House.

I never thought that this would be a quick transformation to begin with since it does deal with individual property owners however, I do think that most of not all of them will want or are already planning on redeveloping their properties so 10 to 15 years seems reasonable.

My question is what about the mixed use project currently under construction? Has the city been working with them to tie in with the overall master plan or are they going to be the lone wolf that doesn't quite fit in but is too late to do anything about?

Paul78701 already linked to the Statesman article about this in the Update thread. But since this project already had a thread I thought I'd bump it with the link to the ABJ article. This is now a real project with the owners putting out an RFIQ.

This will expand Downtown across the river just as Greenwater/Seaholm expanded it to the SW and the Brackenridge Tract will expand it to the NE.


http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...town-site.html

Was the RFQ released to the public? I'd like to see what they are looking for.

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...for-sta/nqLtQ/

Looks like the owners of the site are soliciting plans for redevelopment as well. I've been following this for a bit, so I'm excited to finally see some movement here.