Thanks. I missed that.

Could the Statesman site be targeted for an outdoor market and permanent food trailer area?

I didn't think of this site south of the river when I first heard about the potential market. I can't read the whole article, so it's possibly they narrow the targets down and I don't realize it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...-a-market.html

These are some of the renderings on display last night at the South Shore Vision presentation held at the Hyatt Regency.

It's important to note that none of these things are set in stone. They're just possible concepts - what they referred to at last night's presentation as "scenario planning." The purpose of last night's presentation was mainly to talk about the new analytical tool the city has to figure out what to do with each parcel. (It was developed by one of the speakers at last night's presentation - John Fregenese - and has been "fine-tuned" so to speak - to fit Austin's needs.) It sounded like a cool program. It's sort of like Sim City, but you can set certain parameters - like required number of parking spaces, amount of impervious cover allowed, FAR's, setbacks, etc, and the program will "build" the building to show you what you could put there. It would also estimate how much it would cost a developer to build, how much tax revenue the project would bring the city and how much it would cost the city to provide services for.

The program is supposed to be online in a couple of months and it will also be available for the public to use. (I'm sure some of you will have lots of fun playing around with it.) It's really very fast. They were talking about being able to have public meetings, and if someone in the audience had an idea, they would be able to plug those parameters in and the computer would show you what the project or idea would look like in a matter of minutes.

Last night's presentation (and the slide show with a lot more renderings) will eventually be online (and/or on Channel 6) as well, and it's really worth watching.

My photos didn't come out very well because of the lighting, but thought I'd share them anyway.

A wide view from the north shore of Lady Bird Lake:

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0014.jpg

Left half of the above rendering. Note the possible urban rail/pedestrian bridge connecting Trinity Street to the South Shore.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0015.jpg


Right half of the first rendering - showing the Congress Ave. Bridge and Hyatt.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0016.jpg


This concept is called a Green Finger. It would be different from a major artery. Although it would allow for limited traffic, it's mainly designed for pedestrians to have a pleasant walk to and from the lake and would include housing and retail.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0017.jpg


Green Finger Rendering

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0018.jpg


Street design with urban rail

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0020.jpg


Rendering of Barton Springs Rd (East) with rail

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0021.jpg


Map of the general area - bounded by South First on the west, Lady Bird Lake on the North and east, and Bouldin Creek on the south.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0022.jpg

Compare the above map to an earlier one posted upthread by KevinFrom Texas. Does anyone see the big difference? In the earlier map, planners had wanted to "uncross" the intersection of Barton Springs Rd. & Riverside Drive. At last night's presentation, they said that was no longer feasible due to construction projects in the immediate area already underway.

Looking down on the 3-D model that was at last night's presentation.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/DSC_0023.jpg

I tried to take notes, but the presentation went so fast I wasn't able to take very many, but these were a few things I jotted down.
.
Although they did acknowledge that density promotes walkability, they said that diversity of land use promoted it even more - i.e. you want to have a mix of housing and retail within close proximity to one another. I think this has been one of M1EK's complaint about Mueller. (And I think it's a valid complaint.) The big box stores are so far away from most of the housing that most people will drive to get there. People were surveyed as to what types of retail establishments they wanted to be within walking distance and the number one (75%) was a grocery store.

Nature in the city is very important. (They used the Congress Ave. Bridge bats as an example.)

75% of the region's jobs are within a 20 minute drive of the South Shore District.

Currently there are 3.5 jobs per household within the district. Planners want to bring that number down to about 1.2 - 1.4 jobs per household within the district.

It was mentioned that it would be ideal to have a lot of underground parking, but that it wasn't really financially feasible, so we might be seeing what they called the "Texas Doughnut" - 5-5 stories of retail/housing wrapped around a parking garage.

They mentioned last night that the district has about 58 street intersections per square mile and that they'd like to bring that up to about 100 intersections per square mile.

If anyone's interested, you can go to

http://www.austintexas.gov/waterfront

and sign up for their email alerts.

Thanks for the report and pics! Can you explain their thinking behind more intersections? I figure it's better for walkability, but where are they adding all of those streets/intersections?

I think it does have to do with walkability. There's nothing more maddening to be on one side of the street (especially a busy street like Riverside or South Lamar) and wanting to go somewhere right across the street, but having to walk half a mile or more to get up to an intersection with a cross walk, cross the street, and then walk all the way back down the other side of the street to get where you wanted to go.

I'm also thinking that "intersection" doesn't necessarily have to be an intersection where there is a traffic signal for cars. Near my neighborhood, there's always been a crosswalk at Prather & Manchaca, but there wasn't an actual traffic signal with "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signs. There was a painted crosswalk and one of those yellow & black "Pedestrian Crossing" signs. But you still had to be careful when you crossed there because cars always thought they had the right of way.

Now what the city has installed there is a lot safer for pedestrians. There's still no traffic lights for cars (It's basically a T-intersection) but they did install "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signs and they also installed flashing red lights above the roadway - like the kind you would see at a railroad crossing when a train is going by.

So now when a pedestrian needs to cross that intersection, they push the walk button, and those red lights above the roadway start flashing and if there's someone in the crosswalk, the cars coming in either direction have to stop. You have a set amount of time to make it across - I think it's like 20 seconds, and when the 20 seconds is up, the flashing red lights above the roadway turn off and the cars are free to proceed again. (And 20 seconds is plenty of time for that intersection because it's only 4 lanes of traffic (2 in each direction) with no median in the middle.

If it's a wider intersection with more lanes of traffic, you get more time to cross. At that section of South Lamar with Brodie Oaks Shopping Center on one side of Lamar and Lamar Oaks Shopping Center, a pedestrian is crossing 10 lanes of traffic (5 in each direction including left turn lanes with a median in the middle) you have about 45 seconds to complete your crossing.

As far as where these extra intersections would go (whether they be like the ones I described above or a traditional intersection with traffic signals for cars) I''m guessing more will be added as some of the larger tracts of land (like the Austin American Statesman tract or TXDOT's tract) get sold and redeveloped.

Crosswalks make sense. The one I immediately think of is the one on the Drag by the Co-op. I was a little thrown off by the use of intersection. Crosswalks will definitely help the walkability.

Given the particular plans for the bridge, this is a better connection for the Rainey district and really serves as a great pedestrian connection between Rainey and SoCo (the two hippest areas of Central Austin).

You can read the whole article now.

Sounds like it's still a long way from actually happening.

And btw, that presentation from the Hyatt Regency the other night is online now. The video works for me, but not the slide show presentation.

http://austintexas.gov/department/la...pecial-project

I found better versions of two of the renderings that were shown at that presentation back in May at the Hyatt, as well as some ones I hadn't seen yet here (It's the slide presentation that was shown that night, but there are some on here they didn't show - or at least I don't remember seeing them.) These were all concepts submitted the UT School of Architecture.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore03.jpg


http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore04.jpg


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


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


http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore06.jpg


http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...uthShore05.jpg

goddammitt i hope this happens one day. i always envisioned that part specifically exactly the same way everytime i'd pass by there.

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