The next Design Commission meeting is in two weeks (Mon. 05/24). This project is a likely candidate for an upcoming meeting.

The site plan was approved and released today.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyRSN=93500

That was too quick for a full project site plan, and it is described as a "Concept Site Plan." There is also a Design Submission permit still in progress:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyrsn=93500

For whatever reason, this project is not following the typical permitting route.

And today they filed an actual site plan. I guess they were waiting for the concept site plan to be approved:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyrsn=93500

Yeah, the conceptual site plan process is relatively new (185 used it). It allows the developer to vest some entitlements if there are fuzzy areas such as overlays without spending a lot of money on engineering required for a complete site plan. In this case, I bet they did it to fend off the City's attempt to acquire development rights on the same property.

I don't think the COA is interested in that property anymore since they decided not to expand the convention center to the west.

downtown density program
 

It's to get a Completeness Check in-place before the new Downtown Density Program comes into effect, hoping to get grand fathered in before the crazy new fees become the norm.

I believe Tovo makes the proposal today.

Always efforts from some to make development more expensive. Crickets when it comes to making development more efficient. Of course we're in a huge housing crisis. Glad we have term limits, wish they were adhered to.

I believe the concept plan was filed before the city abandoned the western expansion plans.

The HLC unanimously approved the house relocation at yesterday's meeting to make way for this project.

Quite a few files were added to the site plan today. But there are huge discrepancies in the project info between the files. Apparently it's condo, but the amount of DUs and hotel rooms varies greatly among the different files. We have this listed as 62-stories, but there are other statements saying this is 56, 61 and 64-stories. Apparently this project may have to be built around an old pecan tree that can't be moved which is impacting design.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyRSN=93500


Here's the ground floor:

https://i.imgur.com/5brbYNC.png

Not that they’re apples to apples, but 6X is 65 floors. Just spitballing but I’d bet this one is a 700 footer.

This will only occupy about 1/4 of a block though. It's going to look like a toothpick standing up in the skyline and could be reminiscent of those super skinny condo buildings in NYC.

Excellent point. I think it's awesome we're getting skinny towers. I love the Hyatt or whatever hotel that is at 8th and congress and now possibly this. Build baby build! The thinner the better

No retail because owners can't mingle with lower caste renters.

This is on point. There is zero practical reason for separate lobbies and the only impractical reason is elitism.

Frankly, the city should pass a statute restricting developments to a single residential lobby.

Of course, all that would do is move the city to fewer mixed residential model developments and more single-type residential developments, regardless if situated in a mixed use (e.g. office, hospitality, retail) structure overall. Because #elitism will only buy where they can seclude and keep their money and skills to themselves.

So... build it into the downtown density bonus process instead?

Renters tear up builders, owners take better care. If I'm buying, that's a consideration. I also don't want to wait forever for apartment elevators. I'm not elitist either.

None of this is really true at these price points. You may seriously just be projecting a bias against renters stemming from subconsciously held elitist views: owners are cleaner and nicer and don’t tear things up. Golly! Literally what you said IS elitist by definition. Period. Get over yourself. And, well, what if they don’t actually tear things up?

The wear and tear is the same, just not fixed as promptly by management when in a rental context than in a condo context. That shifts the blame from residents to where it actually belongs: the developers.

Yeah, well, you know that's just, like, you're opinion, man.

Here look:
"You may seriously just be projecting a bias against owners stemming from subconsciously held idealistic views."

On another note, it really is a shame in Austin that we only ever seem to use the first floor for retail/restaurant space. The only two good examples I can think of that extend retail past the first floor are the Aloft and 70 Rainey. I guess the limitation is that it pushes the parking garage up additional levels?

I think a big reason you don't see a lot of joint lobbies between condos and apartments is because of the maintainance. These condos have Condo Associations that pay dues for maintenance, repairs, etc. and I'd imagine sharing common areas with a full-scale rental portion of the building creates some grey area on who pays for what and how. If the lobbies are separate then the Condo Association pays 100% of the maintenance while the Apartment Management pays for 100% of their lobby. If it's shared, then I'm sure the legal agreements between these two entities get a little denser.