|
Quote:
One of the comments pointed out that a building was proposed there several years ago (pre-recession) and that should have been a heads up to move. |
Just wait until 3 eleven bowie goes up... I can't wait to see the view from monarch! No one will complain though because Monarch and 311 Bowie are apartments... Imagine how much they'd be freaking out of Monarch had been condos!
Hotel Zaza should have designed the building further back and higher, and remember there was a cool bar where Hotel Zaza is being planned... even so, it's a part of city living.... sucks for the condo owners... I think they are being reasonable by agreeing to let the Hotel go higher.... I would love to see a 40 floor building there. |
A lot of building permits for the 3rd and Colorado office building have been filed recently including one for a tower crane that was filed this week. :cheers:
https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=10895293 http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blo...pdate%2010.jpg |
Been waiting for this one. It's a looker!
|
Nice. Man that is going to be sweet having that and the JW Marriott rising together.
|
"The property value should always have accounted for the possibility of a building there. To grant them their request would be to bestow upon them a windfall. I'm not really sympathetic to this view."
^ This! In any big city the sides facing into a block are always MUCH less value. Glad to hear 3rd and Colorado is moving forward! I'm only considering this year a success if that and the Manchester hotel break ground. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Another good bit of news today:
http://www.austintowers.net/Austin_D...ndbreaking.php And a new rendering, which honestly makes this look like a great project: http://www.austintowers.net/Austin_D...ng_lg_lg_1.jpg Also: Quote:
|
I didn't realize that it will have restaurant space and will butt right up against the height limit. So, yeah, other than having more retail space or being residential, it's about as good as it gets for that lot. Consider me converted into a believer.
|
Quote:
Love the before and after pic. I also note that between this and Hotel ZaZa there is some faint hope yet for Republic Square - despite the 1-2-3 punch from the Feds and State on killing three surrounding blocks. |
Quote:
|
^Yeah, the CVCs actually encourage height and density since they create unique situations on some blocks where they reduce the allowable height on those blocks, and all of it on others. On the blocks where all of it is restricted by the CVC, it forces the developer to build to the maximum allowed height to achieve the amount of space they're planning. That might mean a building that covers the entire block with a lot of potential for street level retail since the building might need a large footprint to achieve the amount of space they're planning. On the blocks where part of them are restricted by the CVC, it requires the developer to put some of the space under the CVC while putting the rest of the space on the area of the block that isn't restricted. On the unrestricted portion they have to go vertical to get there. On the blocks that aren't restricted by a CVC at all, it encourages developers to utilize them better and not waste a block that could potentially support a lot of height and density. The Travis County Courthouse block is a good example of that. Half the block will go to a private developer who will be allowed to build to the maximum limit with no restriction that might end up being one of the tallest buildings in Texas. So it sort of gives them some incentive to not waste it. The CVCs also create some unique building designs, and they can be perfect for residential neighborhoods since they create planned view corridors for residents to enjoy that are guaranteed to stay put.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But the goal is not just to create height - it's to create a vibrant, interesting, dense, livable downtown. The thing that gets the way in the most in Austin is whole swaths of downtown are surface parking lots or super low intensity single story lots that have been that way and will remain that way for decades to come because the economics of developing them are prohibitive. There are enough roadblocks to development in this city as it is. Also, this idea that somehow it's a benefit to the protect blocks is horrible - you would never purposefully blight blocks in a CBD in order to protect other blocks - but that's exactly what the CVCs in effect do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Good to see that it's finally going to break ground, though. |
Quote:
TBH, I'm far more excited about Green Water than I am about Seaholm based on the renderings I've seen for both projects, but I definitely want both with shovels in the ground, since Seaholm is going to house the new Central Library. Tell me, what's the word around town down there on GW? ...if there is a word I suppose. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
I actually love view corridors for all of the reasons mentioned here and because it makes cities develop in different ways. The last thing I want is for Austin to look like every other city with just a forest of skyscrapers and nothing to look at. To me, it's worth whatever challenges and slowdowns that may come with it, because in the end it adds value to the city by adding beauty, uniqueness, and character. The capitol is central to not just the city, but also our identity as a city. I would hate for that to get lost in a forest of buildings. We have to keep in mind what's important. Development now at the expense of all else is not worth it in the end. There has to be direction to the development. I don't want to be Houston.
|
Quote:
1. The problem with Houston's CBD isn't tall buildings, its that they used to do this: http://beyonddc.com/log/wp-content/u...ownhouston.jpg (And even Houston has realized that that is deadly growth and is remedying this wrong) That's the same kind of contiguous downtown promoted by CVCs, and 2. Austinites love to say how they don't want to be Houston and then implement landuse policies that make Austin more like Houston. View corridors are incredibly pricey propositions encumbering dozens of properties and condemning large amounts of the city to low intensity auto-oriented business like drive though banks (seen a few of those blighting the CBD?). Austin already has a huge area blighted by the state. Some of the CVCs protect views so remote you have to use a pair of binoculars to get a meaningful view, or so site specific you have to stand on a single square meter to see them around billboards. We have a view corridor that protects views from a cemetery...that's right, we protect the views of people no longer alive to enjoy them. Some even protect views which no longer exist. If there were a reasonable number down a few selected corridors it would be fine. There are 35. The entire north east quadrant of the CBD is virtually off limits with predictably grim results. Much of the NW corridor is equally off limits (and they already have to fight OWANA on EVERYTHING). WWs very modest goal of putting 25K people downtown seems nearly out of reach because there are so few parcels available for dense development. There is an enormous cost to CVCs that the city just absorbs. Finally, for me this is not about skylines, its about creating the best possible city experience at the level of the street. And you cannot achieve the critical mass and the consistency people need by blighting large parcels of the city. Look at the areas that have come alive in recent years: they're the areas largely unaffected by the CVCs. |
Quote:
|
Austin's land use policies don't make Austin more like Houston. I don't know if you can tell, but the amount of development happening in both cities isn't even comparable. We have ~20 downtown projects that should be underway this year while they have 5? Or fewer? It's not just about density. That alone doesn't make a city interesting. It's diversity; different areas having different characters. I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm downtown I just hate the fact that there's so many people making you feel rushed, and it's getting worse. The infusion of residents in downtown -- as opposed to just visitors -- gives these (rich) people, many of them not even from here, a sense of ownership over the streets and people not from downtown Austin, who just want to enjoy the city, are seen as nuisances, tourists, slowpokes. So urban areas with less busyness can be nice. Enjoying being downtown without some exasperated yuppie muttering under their breath about you would be nice, considering I was born and raised in this city. That's also not who we are as a city. We're not people who are go-go-go all the time and not able to relax and enjoy things. I get that we can expect more of this, with more highrises going up, but hopefully they assimilate to Austin's character, rather than determine it.
You're afraid of sprawl, but sprawl is not always bad. As Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk say in their book Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, it's about "sprawling the right way"; meaning: sprawling urbanism. You're worried about downtown not being dense enough while I'm concerned with turning the whole of Austin into downtown, so to speak. The thing about the CVC is that it can catch you off guard, surprise you when you least expect it, and you think "Wow, this is a really amazing view!" But it's not an accident. So it kind of creates a positive impression of our city as something with subtlety and serendipity, two hallmarks of civilization. Further, the CVC allows for zoning changes and increased building heights if the developer provides added benefits to the city in some way. So this is a way of taking advantage of largely self-interested parties and turning it into something that benefits the city as a whole. Regarding that picture of Houston, I posted that on tumblr over a year ago and it got reblogged hundreds of times, so I'm a big reason why people know it exists. My point still stands: regulation like the CVC adds to the value of a city more than it detracts from it and this can be seen in the fact that Houston is shit while Austin isn't. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon. |
CVC's yes. THey are useful to the character of the city and they have shaped a unique skyline.
Revist CVC's : needed. They were an over-reaction at a point in time. What frighten me aout the re-vist is that it would be in the hands of a legislature that, not only has no interest in Austin, but often seem to act in spite of Austin. The parts of town that are inhibited by CVC will evolve as the city evolves. Those low compact parts of town will be a wonderful relief in time to an ever increasing skyline. I am glad that the city is developing over time. I am happy being here at this point. If I wanted to live in the "larger/taller" town, perhaps I would move there. |
Quote:
1. I'm well acquainted with Duany and Plater-Zyberk and seen many of lectures and even met Andres Duany and I've read Suburban Nation cover to cover a few times and I can tell you categorically that it is not a prescription "sprawling the right way". It is an absolute unapologetic indictment of sprawl. Duany's entire career to date has been focused on designing urbanism and resisting sprawl. There are multiple town vs sprawl lectures available on youtube, they are excellent and I highly recommend them to anyone interested in urbanism - I would gladly provide links if you like. I am not aware of any time or any point in any of his materials where he says something to the effect of "sprawling the right way". If you can site something, please provide a link or page site, I'd like to read that. However, I suspect you fundamentally misunderstand what he means by sprawl. 2. The CVCs are not negotiable and there is no zoning change available to developers to get out of them, they are categorical. You mistake these for general density caps such as 8-1 FAR that can be avoided through density bonuses. You cannot give developer concessions to get density bonuses on a lot capped under a CVC. Most of the existing CVCs are implemented by both the state legislature and to get around them would, quite literally, take an act of state legislature. 3. Austin land use policies indeed do make Austin much more akin to Houston than to any truly urban city. We are kissing cousins. Austin has hills and not very distinguished architecture, Houston is bigger, flatter with better architecture. But the densities are remarkably similar Houston being a bit denser. Houston is also much larger of course and has about 30 years worth of growth on Austin, but give us time. . .we're growing in a very similar fashion. Austin CBD has come a long way, but it ain't there yet. We have a few interesting pockets and some promising development on the way, but the distance between where it is today and what it could be someday is still great. And if you want Austin to be more like that picture and less like what Austin could be, then yes, things like CVCs and enforcing parking requirements and flat out making development in the CBD less attractive to developers is the way to ensure we continue to have large sections of the devoted to drive-through banks and surface parking lots. Finally, while I kind of get the people who over-value view corridors generally, at least they are overvaluing something. I find the argument that somehow the CVCs are good independently of the view corridors to be strange. Why would we purposefully blight whole swaths of land in the CBD for no reasonable purpose whatsoever? If you wanted to have height caps there are far more rational, equitable and (most importantly in a city that is not a museum) flexible ways to do that. |
1. I'm reasonably certain "sprawl the right way" is a direct quote from Suburban Nation. You misunderstand what it means. It means URBAN sprawl instead of suburban sprawl. If you look at DPZ's method, it's mostly holding charrettes to revitalize blighted areas and/or building new places (that's the key part) that are urban, like Seaside, Florida.
2. Maybe I was mistaken about the CVC being negotiable, but I assume your critique of density caps/bonuses is similar. You just seem to be pretty much against all governmental regulation. This isn't the developers' city, it's ours. So, IMO, we should make the rules, and they should have to comply with them if they want to get into this market (and they will, because they do). 3. I don't care about being a big city. People think that just because we build upwards that we want a huge population. We don't. It's hyperbole to say that regulations are going to result in widespread surface-level parking lots and blight. We're about to work out a comprehensive zoning code that's expressly against what you describe. There's been some talk of banning drive-throughs on Riverside Dr. But somehow you seem to think the opposite is going on. Look at London or D.C or San Francisco. They're very urban, but not full of huge buildings. You'll say that's because they're historic cities, but I'd respond with the fact that similar forces are at work in today's world, including in Austin. Our urban housing market is hot. There's plenty of room to build upward. And just because you can't in some place doesn't mean it can't still be urban. You just build mid-rises or low-rises. Just because it's not tall doesn't mean it's blight. You don't seem to understand that. The IBC Bank Tower is not blight. I value view corridors for the views and because it gives cities different urban fabrics, rather than them all being just a monotonous wall/forest of buildings, i.e. a city with an array of building heights is prettier to look at than a city with buildings that are all of a similar height. Sorry so long-winded. |
Quote:
1. I'm near positive "sprawl the right way" not a quote of Duany and dead positive you cannot find the sentiment in Suburban Nation. However, if you want to provide a chapter site, please do so, I've got my well worn copy near by - I'd be interested in reading that. 2. My critique of density caps/bonuses is not similar. At least FAR caps provide for flexibility and the possibility of offering concessions to be height bonuses. CVCs offer no such path - it is mandate without possible compromise. As to this being our city - ok, but developers build it and it's their ass on the line and things get built or not built based on whether the risk to reward ratio is such that it makes sense. I don't want to see our regulations become counterproductive. 3. I don't care whether Austin is a big city or stays a mid-sized one (it will be what it will be). However, I care deeply about urbanity and I am rather dogmatic on this . Urbanity can exist in small cities (see Charleston, Santa Fe) or large cities (NY, SF, Paris) - it matters not to me what size Austin is. But a livable, workable, vibrant, lively downtown is something I think we all would benefit greatly from. The good news is Austin is hit a growth spurt at a time that co-incided with renewed interest and market reward/demand for more urban projects. The city has greatly benefited from the last 10 or 15 years of central development - but I still see Austin as having a ton of unfulfilled possibilities. 4. I never stated all regulations result in surface-level parking lots and blight. But, empirically you can do a lot by lot comparison of the downtown and look at which lots are subject to a CVC and which ones are not and score them for use and you will see quite clearly that the dead and blighted blocks correspond pretty high with being afflicted by CVCs. Again, wrt your point about London, D.C. and SF - I absolutely agree they are urban - and if we implemented similar land use policies that they had when they assumed that form then Austin too would grow to be urban. But you don't recognize the forces at work - so again, I refer you to a lot-by-lot comparison. If you value view corridors that is an entirely subjective thing that I can't argue with other than it's important to recognize that those view corridors do come with a price - both an economic price in terms taxes and services the city can produce and price in not being able to create the kind of world class downtown that we deserve. |
Komeht,
You realize that the argument you make is in no way mutually exclusive from the argument that Kevin and I made and other are continuing to make here. You're saying that CVCs blight certain parts of downtown, where the CVC overlays are so close to the ground that they prohibit anything to be built at all or, if something can, a single or perhaps a few stories at max. In other words, making those blocks undesirable for developers. Yes, that's true (at least in the short term, which I address below). We aren't saying that CVCs are all good, just that they do have good impacts in a few ways. Such being that on some blocks they force developers to build higher if they want to get the bang for their buck (these are the blocks where a CVC overlay is partial) that they originally wanted. Most here are also arguing, quite rightly, that this happens to make for interesting development patterns. My addendum to this was that the overlays happen to increase unit values because they can offer their residents protected views, which actually makes development more likely on some parcels. But going even deeper, both sides are having completely different arguments here (we're talking past each other). We are arguing primarily a fact based "this is what CVCs have happened to contribute in a positive way, though there may be negatives" whereas you, Komeht, seem to be arguing a straight "this is why we should get rid of CVCs" (as I think became evident when you tipped your hand on your "dogmatic urbanist only attitude") instead of what would logically be the opposite of our position: "CVCs are all bad and the good outcomes don't actually exist" (which would be a problem for you, given that they do and there's pretty clear empirical evidence that they do). And I'd actually argue that in the long-term, though certain CVCs should be removed and there are current major efforts to do reform, CVCs actually do not end up with the bad that you suggest they do: 1. The lots where CVCs would prohibit more than a story or two will eventually become prime developable land, when other parcels are off the market because they've already been developed. In fact, adjacent development (especially residential) would make redevelopment of these blocks more likely for retail or what-have-you. They may not be built to their full potential, but they certainly will not be maintained as urban blight. 2. The lots where CVCs prohibit anything taller than a parking lot (and there are a few, though not more than a handful) should and can be bought by the city and turned into parkland. 3. The height limits that CVCs institute actually create an interesting incentive to develop a diversity of projects in downtown. A grocery store here, a small museum there, a four story VMU residential project elsewhere. And actually also create a very organic urban atmosphere that many cities lack. And they do all this while also protecting legacy views. And I do have a single note on something you said: Quote:
|
Quote:
Besides, I suspect that in the future as downtown starts to fill in more to a critical point, the CVCs will be re-evaluated. We'll probably see some of them removed. Some of them are already blocked from view because of tree growth. Also if I-35 is ever reconstructed with buried lanes it'll mean some of the views will go away then. I don't think we've reached a critical point yet. We're still getting shorter projects, buildings with relatively small amounts of space, and we aren't seeing a huge demand for office space to the point that developers are responding by building new office buildings. At least, not like the residential market is doing. The office market right now is still absorbing space. And another thing is we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves here. Until we get some proper public transportation into downtown from outlying areas, downtown will not be the sole office hub in the city. We need to increase commuter capacity into downtown by public transportation and decrease the need for doing it by car. When that happens and developers are able to ease up on building parking garages, we'll see demand for space shoot up, and developers will respond by building. I agree that some of the CVCs are unnecessary and redundant, but they do actually have an unintended result that can actually encourage density and height. Quote:
I love the Capitol. I grew up running around the Capitol grounds as a kid and walking through the halls of it. I want it to stay relevant on the skyline, but there has to be a reasonable compromise and balance to what views are protected and which are allowed to go away. Anyway, I really don't see how CVCs contribute to auto-centric development. It's not like there are CVCs outside of downtown or in the suburbs. The kind of development rules Austin should be setting are development standards that promote more of what we'd like to see such as requiring retail in downtown and along major corridors in new developments. There should also be more focus on better civil engineering with pedestrians in mind. And lastly, setting guidelines for better building materials. Also the CVCs really only affect downtown. Only a couple of them stretch outside of downtown. |
Quote:
It's not just a matter of height (though w/o height some of these lots are un-developable) - if you look at why urbanism works in some places and doesn't work in others certain trends become clear. One that I've found to be virtually universal is urbanity requires development to be contiguous. Once you get a break, and it doesn't have to be a big one, for people to continue walking there has to be something exceptionally compelling to walk to - one block can absolutely kill it. Put enough of those breaks and. . .you get nothing. You can't ever get off the ground. That's the effect of having so much land tied up under CVCs - it absolutely kills whole sections of the CBD. I'm not really concerned about the effects outside the CBD. But inside the CBD this matters. That being said, I'm well aware they're not going anywhere and something of a sacred cow around here. Just another reason why Austin won't ever be the kind of city it could be, and that is a great shame. And BTW, while I acknowledge I'm something of an outlier on this (and frankly, I'm perplexed that people active on this board aren't more with me on this) I don't stand completely alone - but unlike zoning battles, this isn't just un-winnable, you can't even fight them at all. . .so no one even bothers to discuss it. But the argument that the CVCs actually increase taxes and spurs development I find to be ridiculous. You need only look to the lots impacted by the CVC to see its effect. The projects that manage to get off the ground (after decades upon decades of nothingness) like IBC are very much the exceptions. And where are these grocery stores here, museums there, 4 story vmu residential elsewhere that is supposedly in the CVC lots? Whole Foods - case-in-point could not have gone on a CVC protected lot. w/r/t taxes - please, increasing the value of some lots and decreasing the value of many others does not result in a net increase of ad valorem taxes. I do not buy this argument at all. If you want to send me something written by any of the economists you speak of I'd love to read it and give it thoughtful consideration. oh, BTW, thanks for sic-ing a hastily written forum post. But if you're going to do that, and if you're going to quote me, please do me the curtesy of being accurate and not embellishing what I said between the quotes. |
Quote:
Consider my current situation. I've grown up in New York City. I work in Times Square. ...and I cannot wait to move away. I didn't only love Austin when I visited because of its tall buildings (although the explosive skyline growth was eye candy in person :P). I loved it because I felt like I could breathe, there was open sky and greenery, restaurants and shops converted from old ranch homes, people sitting in lots by the food trucks enjoying the weather and each other's company, crowds filling 6th Street after dark like I've never before seen a single street packed with people on just a regular night. :rolleyes: It's not the city in the sense of New York, but it's an urban environment where people socialize and connect, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Of course, there are improvements to be made, and I hope ATX rides the wave of growth as far as it will. If it became New York though, I'd be terribly disappointed. Austin needs to stay Austin, to be kept weird. The CVCs will sculpt the skyline, no doubt, but I'd disagree that it'll be in a negative way. The gaps you're complaining about, they give the Austin skyline that thing that makes it the Austin skyline. |
Quote:
And with regard to the impact on skyline, frankly to me this is a secondary concern. Skylines are nice to look at...from outside the city and I'm all for a nice skyline. But What I'm really concerned with and intersted in and what really gets my enines running is what the city looks, feels, acts like from the ground, within it, from the perspective of the persons lucky enough to live or visit. However, I will note that the reason Austin has a rather uninspiring and rather squatty skyline has as much to do with parking requirements as with anything. Fortunately those rules are being revisited. |
Quote:
You're correct about the parking requirements too, I just made a comment about that in the 3rd/Colorado thread on the Austin local forums. That also takes us circling back to the issue of improving transit options, but I digress. :D |
1. Okay, I've been looking for the quote off and on all night because I know I'm not crazy and didn't imagine it. I found it. On pages x and xi of the foreword to Suburban Nation -- I keep wanting to call it "Suburban Nature", which is a very good album by Sarah Jaffe -- it says "...if only there were some third choice available other than bad growth and no growth, the former being difficult to stomach and the latter being difficult to sustain for more than a few years at a time. Obviously, that third choice is good growth, but is there really such a thing?" They then go on to talk about great places humanity has created and finish it off by saying "They, too, are examples of growth, but they grew in a different way than the sprawl that threatens you now."
So, not "sprawl the right way", but "good growth". Same idea, just a bit more sanitized language. In essence, they're not against building at the edges when it's considered a TND. Also, I'm glad your copy is well-worn. But mine has a sticker on the front that says "Donated to the Kentlands Library By Andres Duany & Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk July, 2001". So there. :P 2. Okay 3. Then you shouldn't hate CVCs so much. Curse them a little bit maybe, but don't hyperbolically imply they necessarily result in blight. The truth is that they result in whatever gets built or not built. And we can still encourage/direct development in these corridors in many ways. 4. The forces at work behind those places were that they were/are boom-towns. D.C. has some of the most restrictive height restrictions of anywhere on the planet, and I can understand why. View corridors would be a good middle-ground compromise. My point in talking about these cities was to show that smaller doesn't automatically mean blight. |
To summarize my thoughts on CVCs, I have an attitude like "Okay, this is different, lets see what happens with this". Restrictions and regulations often lead to experimentation and creativity within those limits, like athletic competition governed by certain rules, which evolves into a sport, or a tree confined by certain barriers that must adapt and grow into a wild new shape. This is our city. This is what we have. Let's see what we can do with it. Maybe we can do something cool and new and unique. If we can agree to strike out on this path on our own instead of taking the path everyone else takes and reserve judgment until the end, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. I just know that this looks like a pretty cool city that I might like to experience:
http://i.imgur.com/D3bW5GT.jpg It will undoubtedly turn out a little differently, but that's in compliance with the CVCs and it's pretty dense. Maybe it will have the effect of pushing big development to new areas. We're already seeing some larger buildings being built south of the river. Maybe we'll see an explosion. I hope so. That would be great. I probably wouldn't be against loosening some of the CVCs, but probably not getting rid of them altogether. I see it mostly as a restriction that can/will result in some creative adaptation and uniqueness. |
Quote:
|
Does anybody have pics to post? Too much talking going on here.:)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Lamar Village Redevelopment
http://www.studio8architects.com/images/B06-Lamar.jpg http://www.studio8architects.com/Lamar.htm |
Another from that website
http://www.studio8architects.com/images/TSTA1.jpg http://www.studio8architects.com/images/TSTA4.jpg http://www.studio8architects.com/images/TSTA2.jpg http://www.studio8architects.com/Downtown.htm# Does anybody know what this is? |
I noticed the capitol in the background of one of those renderings. I looked at the emerging projects poster. I'm guessing it's the Travis County DA Office Building at 11th and San Antonio. Will be a nice addition considering it's mixed use and in a CVC.
|
Also worth noting from that website is this Episcopal Archives building that will be on the block between 7th & 8th and Trinity & Neches. Not a hugely exciting project, but still significant and I don't think we've seen these renderings before. It's also in a CVC.
http://i.imgur.com/nO4KhMW.jpg http://i.imgur.com/jf5Cc0J.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dKMytMa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/cZlU8ib.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Who remembers Estancia Hill Country? That big development planned for extreme South Austin. I noticed today there were two signs up at the property along I-35 saying "Coming Fall 2013". The developer is Lennar. I tried searching for a page related to them, but didn't really see one.
There is this, though: http://www.cbre.us/o/austin/properti...ages/main.aspx |
I remember that, Kevin. New Urbanism and cul-de-sac-filled suburban sprawl in the same project? Yikes. It's like they're trying to make poison more appealing by pouring sugar in it. No thanks, guys. But I guess we're helpless to stop it. Fuckers.
FYI: http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...ol-comp/nWRdg/ Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 8:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev