Woohoo!:cheers:

Do you know if Laura Morrison and Kathie Tovo voted in favor?

It was unanimous. =)

Looks like we made the right votes this year, way to go ATX and props to the 2 that we would have expected to vote against this!!!!Things look good for our future, this is truly the first serious effort to cut traffic. Live close to work, what a novel idea.

.......and the Tiniest Bar in Texas stays alive!!

I still stand up for who I feel would be the better council member but I must say its interesting to see people who the ANC endorses and who are so NIMBY in their ideals when they run for office suddenly move away from their positions they ran on in the first place. Morrison held out the longest over a year in fact but began to change a bit about a year ago. Same with Tovo though probably began to shift toward more sensible positions a little earlier than Morrison did.

Both ran against the city selling the Green Water Treatment plant site to be developed by private interests and yet they both voted in favor of the final deal last week. Both were not interested or thought the city should not worry about an overall comprehensive plan for the city's growth and were more for neighborhoods dictating growth in their areas yet they both voted in favor of Imagine Austin when all was said and done.

Reality hits you when you are a council member of a major city and realize that you can't be so NIMBY when you see the money that will come in with projects and development, which mind you actually helps to keep taxes lower for the city. They don't know all that is involved until they are actually in that seat and then you see them begin to look at things in a more sensible way.

What I do find kinda funny is how they did revert to their Neighborhood base and stances during the city elections when they openly supported Bridget Shea. My how a failed run for mayor can make them go right back to being sensible LOL.

I may get bashed for this, but some of the things they do against these developments I think are kinda good. I bet if affordable housing wasn't a condition of the Green sale we would have been able to get some much taller and better buildings. But I am glad they stuck their hands in there and got them to agree to provide more under market housing for much longer time frame. I think it will be better for the health of downtown, even if we lost out on some amazing tall buildings at that site.

I think it is things like that, which is why they may seem to go against their typical NIMBY or ANC support. They see they can do a lot of good if they are willing to just work with these developers some. Also I'm not sure that people can still get elected in Austin on a 100% ANC/NIMBY vote anymore. To be able to say they pushed for and got that affordable housing downtown is good politically. They can still be all NIMBY with regard to various neighborhoods around town to try to keep the ANC support.

Good points.

Right on Bevo and Jdawg, as I have spoken with Jdawg many times is the simple fact that we need that tax money coming in to help what they can do with the budget which just means more services for the city. It also makes it easier to not raise taxes to get even just the needed improvements and expansions to continue to remain healthy. We can get the money from dense areas or have them continue to take large swaths of land to create CRAPPPP (the development that has dominated this country really since the 50's and 60's), which are set up for failure with the cheap materials they use and the fact they don't maintain them well. They are doomed for ghettodom in anywhere from 10-30 years into the future. You can look at the rings/loops around all cities and metro areas (even our lovely models of density NYC, Chicago and the like) which just pushes for the population to push further and further out to get that white picket fence life promised to us by Leave it to Beaver, lol.

How tall is this going to be? I'm thinking around 450......

I think Kevin posted somewhere that he sent out an email to get that info. But it should be close to 450 - maybe 425'- with the screen around the mechanical stuff on the roof.

Finally.... this is going to be a good year guys.

Pretty good addition to the skyline. How about ground level? Any retail?

I got an email back from Endeavor, the developer of 3 eleven Bowie. It will be 420 feet tall. That's to the top of the mechanical penthouse. He said the occupied space where the pool deck is is just shy of 400 feet. Today it would be our 6th tallest building. 4 feet taller than Ashton, but 14 feet shorter than Spring.

That's about what I expected with the height. Remember, it "only" has 36 floors and is 420 feet tall. Ashton is also apartments and has 36 floors and is only 4 feet shorter.

Yes. 3,000 square feet. It'll also have 42,000 square feet of office space for the developer's headquarters.

I feel like all of this development is really snowballing, and it's only going to increase. The more of these buildings that are built, the more enticing these neighborhoods become and the more developers know that their window for getting real estate in downtown is closing. That guy who said the market can only afford 500 new apartments per year was smoking something. I just hope developers keep including studio/efficiency apartments so that downtown remains (becomes?) liveable for The Rest of Us.

I know one forumer was expressing doubts about the Fairmont going ahead anytime soon. I don't get it. Manchester has deep pockets and he's got a top-tier hotel committed and the demand is clearly there.

I tried to tell y'all that Kathy Tovo isn't a Nimby.... She didn't vote for F1 because of the way it was funded... I disagree with that decision, but she is not a NIMBY. Her husband is a really good architect... Tom Hurt. He has designed several good projects around town. She got that anti-development reputation because she opposed Guerro's building a 6 story parking garage one block in from Congress... in Bouldin Creek. Also, I heard recently that the Seaholm real estate agent bristled at her when she walked through the space with him... apparently, she said... don't you think this magnificent space would be better as a public use rather than offices? The agent apparently got all snippy "what do you have against comercial use?"

When I heard that story, it made me seriously angry that the Seaholm people lack the vision to see what a colossal mistake by not utilizing that space for a market. If people really want to see density and urban rail and taller buildings downtown, then they need to stop Seaholm people from signing these easy leases to companies with deep pockets that can sign a million year lease. Think about it... they are going to put administrative offices in the most unique building on the waterfront. It could have been like New York's Chelsea Market, or San Fran's Ferry building, or Seattle's downtown waterfront pier marketplace.... What we are getting instead is the equivalent of a large Bank putting an ATM building in a building that really could use a pub, theater or restaurant. Sooooo crappy.

There are better opportunities for this kindof thing. Honestly, we already have that in SoCo.

yeah i think i agree with you. never thought about having some similar use to what you described in Seaholm, but now that sounds like it would be a pretty good idea. too bad though.

Im also not happy about Seaholm but whats done is done. At least in a couple of years the city will reevaluate the building for public use.

By the way do we have any idea on who is going to occupy Seaholm?

http://www.seaholm.info/graphics/seaholmplan.png
http://www.seaholm.info/

Not sure if this has been posted yet , but it gives you the idea of the layout and what it will become, and as far as offices in the old power plant I can guarantee you that I was disappointed with the outcome as well but it is what it is.