Let us all remind each other of the full potential of this area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...VM&usp=sharing

If there were another east/west connection with a real signature bridge here and meaningful connective integration with an expanded East Avenue between there and to (and with) I-35? OMG that'd be amazing. It'll never happen, though.

Love the idea of a Cummings Street bridge.

Right? That would serve so many transportation interests if tied into a broader I-35 connection framework via East Avenue. It would alleviate Cesar Chavez at Rainey. It would alleviate traffic on Riverside. It would provide more access east/west generally. It would make getting into and out of Rainey significantly easier. There are so many plusses here.

I'd totally have it be two lanes in each direction with some signature arch design with architectural flair with lighting at night and a large pedestrian component and have it directly connected thru to interstate 35 as two lanes in each direction with some ingenious intersection configuration at the interstate itself to account for the elevation of the preexisting configuration (such as a roundabout from northbound I-35 to westbound East Avenue underneath the highway).

That would be awesome.

Wow. I'm sold. This would be incredible and for it to be a signature bridge would be an even bigger plus. This area has so much potential. I like the idea of Crystal Lagoons being there, but then again to have it be more of an extended grid would be ideal as well.

What I'd love to see is mixed used density, with as always, some height. I imagine a point tower right near the waterfront that's sort of a balancing focal point with the Austonian. Even if the rest of the towers are 20-40 stories or midrises, I'd like to see a signature tower out of this. Whatever they do, I hope it's interesting. If this land is just divided up into spec office, like 8 or so 5th and Colorado type towers (15-20 stories), I'll be really disappointed.

I agree with everything here - including (sadly) the part that it'll never happen. At least not any time soon. I'm sure MACC would have a field day with that, by the way, haha...boxed in by two bridges (in their eyes). Of course, one of the two, to appease them, could be designed with the Hispanic culture in mind? I think that'd be kinda cool, actually.

That said, I do love the idea of establishing a significant grid there, and if that's done further connectivity (if anything else, a wide bike/pedestrian bridge) would do wonders. I think there would need to be another vehicular bridge, though...at least one.

Interesting:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/o...14-2016/nqMYs/

It'll be VMU. I doubt anything more than 15 stories. There's also that Austin has historically disliked taller structures closer to the waterfront, and although idk if this area is zoned in that way, but I doubt anything tall is gonna get build net to the water.

Personally, I actually like the height requirement stepping back away from the river where they already exist and, if they don't already apply here they should.

Note: I've revamped that google map with a lot more detail. Make sure you click on the overlays, I always include descriptions of what I'd do and usually why.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...VM&usp=sharing

I've always imagined something closer to the Domain in terms of walkability and ground floor retail throughout, except with 12+ story buildings at every single block. I would also hope for a mix of residential and commercial. I'd also love for there to finally be some proper high density micro-apartments in the 300sqft range with lots of built-in storage + a murphy bed.

Well, as much as a bunch of 12 story buildings would be nice, I doubt that that'll ever happen here.

I'd also fuck around with Hancock Center, use eminent domain and build the streetcar right through the middle and then use that as a neighborhood center redevelopment opportunity a la north Austin's answer to Lamar Union with a nice plaza integrated into a rail stop in the middle.

That map is restricted, my access was denied.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...emium-referral

hmm. I can't figure out why...

How do they know the neighborhood doesn't want there to be additional height? I believe that the "old" guard homeowners would most likely be opposed (probably to ANY development), but I'd wager that if you took a vote of ALL the stakeholders (renters, businesses, etc) you would have a ton of support. All the people I know that live in '04 live there because of the all the development, not in-spite of it.

That area now is a disgrace to the waterfront. Stubby state office buildings surrounded by acres of parking lots fronting the water is probably not what Lady Bird Johnson had in mind. And I can think we can do better than the low density businesses that are there that, despite being in a place where people should be enjoying, are not the type of business that attracts visitors there since they aren't anything special that you couldn't find anywhere else in the metro.

This development would enhance everything that is great about the riverfront, the hike and bike trail, the mix-used availability that enables *more* people to enjoy what Austin has to offer. I think Dcbrickley has a point - most folks I know who still live in the Austin area love the growth. They hate the traffic, but they love what is happening in Austin. Some of the older folks are opposed to it, of course, but I can understand that - all the more reason for compromise rather than one side having all the say (i.e., no development at all vs. go crazy and never look back). It doesn't have to be black or white. I'm all for this development, personally. I think it'll be great if they do it right.

You hit the nail on the head. I moved from out of town to 78704 a few years ago specifically because of all the new development in the area (and of course the proximity to downtown and town lake).

I would wager that this development will be met with overwhelming support. The area now is an eyesore at best. Hideous government buildings, Statesman, and a failed strip club. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone looking to preserve any of that even if the new development isn't exactly their own vision.

This can't happen soon enough. It's some of the best real estate in Austin, and I'm glad people have the forethought to plan out and create visions for the area. I'd personally love to see a world class museum in the area.

The new park is the political cleavage issue among NIMBYs which will allow this plan to get broad public support.

This would be amazing. Love the park idea.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...emium-referral


http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/...psrz5zak9m.png

I like this vision. I don't think it will happen, at least not in my lifetime, but some of you that remember my 'What if ' thread..., this would qualify as a big what if. Setting the politics and nimbys' aside, this is plausible. In terms of satisfying my skyline to match our population ego, this would pretty much do it. Imagine staring out your window from north of the lake and checking out the skyline to the south.
They should have added a bridge to the east of Congress to the drawing though. Whether for rail, pedestrian, cars, or all three, since this is fantasy land, might as well go all out...and I'll excuse where the artist placed the Independent and the Rockie Mountains in the background.

my GAWD
:slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob::slob:

BUT the placement of the Independent is all wrong...

Jeepers I hope this plan can actually happen without stupid ass Bouldin neighbor-NIMBYs freaking out about their over-priced cottages being near skyscrapers.

The council presentation should be linked here

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...160405-wrk.htm

This is probably the clearest image of the vision presented yesterday. Still very automobile oriented. Good to see ROW reserved for future rail, though.

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

Taking a page from your book...lol. I creamed a little in my pants after seeing that picture. :worship:


Can you imagine what could look like twin downtowns meeting at the river! Man it would put Austin on a whole other level.

Now back to reality... We are a good 20+ years off before we see South Shore Central being built out. There will be a lot of factors and market drivers that will dictate how the district forms. I think the majority of people in the city (definitely in city gov) have come to the conclusion that DT will have to expand south of the river. It really began decades back with the Hyatt, One Texas Center and a host of smaller office buildings. At least with the South Shore Central District plan, they can take a big step in how they want it to look rather than letting it haphazardly develop on it's own.

One thing is certain, South Shore Central will change the face of Austin no matter what it ultimately ends up looking like.

http://i.imgur.com/fizmFbu.jpg

I kinda like this version. :cheers:

Lol Maybe the Hayatt will decide to build a whole new hotel across Congress and the developers that recently completed the Cathern and the VMU will see the sense in having their investments torn down for a football stadium.:cool:

Maybe in an other parrallel universe hehe.

I still think that a soccer stadium at least could work and fit into the district if they incorporate it into a mixed use complex where it would be used day and night instead of having a dead zone in the middle of a vibrant district.

By the way, if you added that stadium, love how you made the letters of Austin into the shape of a bat.

I personally think this project is a massive failure of it doesn't look like the iteration above. It should be dominated by mix-used midrises (10-15 stories) but absolutely needs a collection of point towers right near the Congress Bridge. I envision one or two 30-story towers and a signature 500-600 footer right at the edge like depicted above. I love the idea of a public park fronting the water, maybe even an artificial beach. This can be a defining section of the city that swings development across the river. I hope they don't mess it up and build 5-7 story glass boxes with poor street interaction.

Between this, the Brackenridge tract, Medical Center and the Capitol Complex plans we have a helluva lot of stuff to look forward to mid and long term. At buildout, that equals about 100 buildings total among those four projects as they are currently envisioned.

I think that the idea of having a plan is sometimes seen as a bad thing (some of the comments, etc.). The haphazard development of the area is the reason it's so dull right now (bland buildings with seas of parking lots and no interaction with neighbors). Any major investment in anything ever has come with planning, tweaks to plans, and more planning as things change and grow. Plans don't mean you have to live and die by them, but it means that you have direction and aren't flying by the seat of your pants. If the city is serious about continuing to grow in a healthy and beneficial way for generations to come, it will approve this type of plan for the area.

I have high hopes for Austin decades to come. I think our problem is that we're very interested in developments and we see so much potential. Not everyone is so passionate about it so it takes them longer to come around on quality urban design. I'm excited about this project and hope that even the greatest opponents to development can see the potential and agree to compromise.

We're already pushing 200 high rises, so that would put us around 300 then.

But a lot of those 100 buildings won't be considered high-rises - especially the ones planned for the Capitol Complex.

Questions:
1. Does anyone have any idea what's happening with that seemingly-abandoned apartment complex at Riverside and S. First, the one adjacent to the Catherine? I can't even find a thread for that project. It's been a VERY long time since I've seen any progress at that corner, which gives the appearance that the developer was into some shady dealing or was under-financed or something. It reminds me of the type of thing that happened in the mid-80s when the local market crashed and many projects were abandoned.

2. In the illustration posted by Matt, they're showing new highrises at the SE corner of Congress and Riverside, where there is currently a fairly nice strip mall, as strip malls go. What's up with that, is that property up for grabs and is it slated for redevelopment? I presume "yes" to the second part of the question, otherwise it would be depicted as is in the rendering.

Of course I shared the same orgasmic enjoyment of the rendering posted by the Genral and dearly wish for it to be at least vaguely prognostic as to what will come to fruition on that land. The proportions and spacing are perfect, at least from the perspective offered. Funny thing is, nobody will ever see it from that perspective in real life, unless there are plans for a Burj Khalifa knockoff at Holly and Comal. Hey, ya never know. And if you want to challenge me on the hypothetical location, I studied a map to try to get the perspective right but I bet one of you OCD chaps can nail it with extreme precision.

I regularly park across the street when I walk the hike and bike trail and I can confirm that the VMU is being finished out albiet slowly. There was quite a lot of brick work that seemed to crawl but that has been completed and overall work has picked up. In fact it looks like they are close to completion. I was worried by how the finished product would turn out especially given the sluggish speed at which they were building it but I must say it's looking pretty nice. If I could, I'd rent the top level apartment on the northwest corner with the large balcony. The view of the river and city alone would make the high monthly payments worth it plus there will be plenty of highrise construction to enjoy for the next few years.

That place had a very small work force. At one point they stopped working on the north half and focused on the south half. Once the south half was almost completed they re-started work on the northern portion.

Almost all of this land is owned by private businesses. You can't force them to close and open up apartments.

The point is to push the entire area towards a cohesive district that is public friendly. They aren't buying everything and re-building like they can do at the brackenridge hospital.

Outside of the Statesman tract, not much will probably happen with this vision any time soon. And the Statesman tract is going to be mostly a bat watching park. So there won't be much new construction for a long time.

There actually are quite a few more parcels in play as well. Much of the vision is aspirational, but about half of it could actually happen in the next few years.

The Statesman tract is more than just a park. 4 of those projects in the scheme above are entirely on the Statesman tract, and once those are developed (and are likely to developed in quick succession if not simultaneously), you'll likely see development spread to neighboring parcels pretty quickly.

Quoting myself. I wasn't expecting the news on Hooters triangle to break the next day! It is only the first of several to come.

Its currently zoned for a max of 60 feet in height, but the COA is looking for ways to allow for a 200 footer. Not sure what that means, I thought they could just do as they please.
source, AAS 4/9.

I'm glad they can't just do as they please. In some cases, it might make things move more quickly, but there needs to be accountability and approval processes for the city just as with anyone else.

Here's another write up:

http://buildingatx.com/2016/04/south...pe-renderings/

On so many levels this makes me happy.

If the Statesman is right, this surprises me. Many, many developers have looked into developing that site over the years. In addition to the Schulz family being reluctant to sell, until now that is, all the developers were told by the City "off the record" that as long as the COA occupies One Texas Center the allowable height will not be changed on that site because the City doesn't want their view of Downtown blocked, even partially. I would think they would be even more against it now that the Catherine partially blocks their view. Or maybe that's why they changed their mind since that angle of their view is already blocked. Who knows. At least they are moving in a positive direction, ie more height not more restrictions.

This is disgusting, makes me sick to my stomach.

Yea that's pretty messed up for them to do that. I mean the One Texas Center is a crappy building (not as crappy as what Brandywine is proposing for 4th @ Colorado mind you) but still.... What gives the city the right to make those kinds of requests? I mean they will still have a view of the city, the only difference is that the city view will be closer and more impressive than before.

They were being worse than the NIMBYs in Bouldin IMO because One Texas Center is a "highrise" and some how you can't block the views from it??? Bring on the taller buildings so we don't have to look at One Texas Center...


On an other note, in my opinion the Shultz trust triangle is the second most important piece of land behind AAS. It's a prominent and very visible block that needs to be planned well because it along with AAS will ultimately set the standard for the rest of the district. I hope it has more than just office space. It truly needs to have a 24 hour use and it needs to be fairly tall. When you look at the map, that lot will basically the western gateway into South Shore Central.

agreed. how do they dare complain that there is not enough housing, when they block housing at every turn?

You CANNOT solve the problem of inadequate housing without adding more housing. Fir Fuk Sake

Do y'all think we're past the point where we can fix that Riverside/Barton Springs X? If not, what do you think should be done to realign them, and how would the names be changed?

I read something a long time ago (I think an article linked on SSP) that it wasn't going to happen with all of the new construction already underway.

I recall seeing a rendering (back in the 90's) of Butler Park and it did not include Riverside at all. I remembering being shocked by that.