Except that it is complete BS.

I hope you are right. I was very naive regarding the city till I built my first home.

I know they've floated the idea of depressing it and/or partially capping it.

This rendering has been posted before, but here's a bigger version.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...ngs/SWC-01.jpg

It came from the "final" South Central Waterfront Vision Framework Plan as adopted on June 16, 2016.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/Austi...estEdition.pdf

First, they talked about a "baseline buildout" - what could be done under existing regulations without any intervention from the City, but several of the parcels wouldn't see enough return on investment under the existing regulations and those parcels probably wouldn't be redeveloped in the next 5-7 years. Because of this, the public loses out on benefits like more open space, affordable housing, etc.

The rendering above and those below are based on a test scenario, where the developers are allowed to build more/higher than what current regulations allow to make it worth their while, and the public gets more benefits.

One of the things in the report is about a possible Statesman Waterfront Park.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...ngs/SWC-02.jpg

(There are also renderings of The Great Lawn, The Pontoon Landing, and the Barton Springs Plaza Rain Gardens in the report.)

The report also envisions a Crocket Square and Cox Marketplace.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...ngs/SWC-03.jpg

From Page 102 of the report:

Test Scenario Development Program

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...ngs/SWC-04.jpg

Most of the buildings depicted on the above map are 200 feet or less in height, but I see three residential towers of 240 feet, a hotel that's 280 feet, and two office buildings - one 300 feet tall and the other 400 feet tall.

There's a lot more in the report, but those were just some of the highlights.

That's actually quite a lot. I count 11 200 footers. Austin right now has 24 200 footers, plus three more that are under construction - two of which have topped out. So technically we have 26. 11 more would be quite an increase especially considering it's just one neighborhood.

So that rendering is a real..."ideal" scenario right? I mean could we realistically see this type of development in that area in the next 10 years? I have a hard time believing that riverside/barton springs/Soco property owners would like this many highrises right in their neighborhood.

Just let me know when they actually make these bike lanes reality.

Oh god, they're not still talking about that absolutely moronic idea of a pontoon bridge that isn't always there?

No kidding... It's a ridiculous idea and would only be used a couple of times a day and when it is in use it would block boats and canoes from passing up and down the waterway.

If they want another pedestrian bridge then build another pedestrian bridge, maybe one where some sort of future light rail component could be built onto.

That's just one aspect of Austin that always bugs me. We try to cut corners way too much to save money or time. I mean, I think that with the boost to the property tax revenue the city and county would get from all of that development that we should get something more substantial and permanent than a floating bridge.

Honestly I never thought they proposed that to save money. Especially once you add operating costs, I'd be surprised if it's cheaper.

I figured it was just new/unique/original/"more-Austiny"

You know, the gondola of bridge designs. :)

Please tell me this is a joke. How about something that has the capacity to be here in 100 years?

Exactly.

Yeti's flagship store on S. Congress is considered to be one of - if not the first - South Shore projects.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...ongress/ns9fZ/


From the article:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/l...laza--004-.jpg


The U/C location from a September Google driveby:
http://i.imgur.com/nhkHm8R.png

Not sure if this counts as being technically south shore, but it's south congress, so I thought it warranted mentioning. But the owner of a pretty large piece of property on SOCO has decided to develop it into mixed-use, per the Statesman's report.

http://www.statesman.com/business/do...ef=cbTopWidget

Glad to see Lake Flato will be doing this project - they do really excellent work.

It's not just Docs, that's quite a lot of businesses that this development will be displacing. Other than restaurant space, there's no mention of retail space.

My hope is that, as more and more plots get developed in or near downtown, developers will see local businesses as advantageous for retail/restaurant spots on the ground floors. Not only does it bring density/development (which is inevitable), but it preserves culture and keeps local businesses around. I'm glad to see more density, but I've heard great things about that restaurant (I've not been there) and I know a few friends who will be sad to see it go. Good to know that they're looking for another spot.

I know that there's no way to force developers to rent out to local businesses only, but I do wonder if incentives would at all be reasonable to that end? What do you guys who are more familiar with how incentives work think of that? Obviously, part of it would require keeping the rent low enough for local businesses to be able to afford it...

After the Domain subsidy controversy, City Council passed a resolution banning all retail subsidies. The only way the City can mandate local business requirements is through redevelopment of City-owned land like Seaholm and Mueller. There are requirements in both cases.

The Statesman article mentions retail space:

A mixed-use project planned for the commercial strip that includes Doc’s would displace the pub, along with Sfanthor House of Wax, Texas National Outfitters, Wet Salon & Studio, Strut, Parts & Labour, United Apparel Liquidators and a gym. The project calls for office, retail and restaurant uses as well as a parking garage.

It does! I have dyslexia with numbers but I wonder if I have a little dyslexia with words too because I swear I only saw restaurant uses.

Speaking of new development along SoCo, a little off topic but not totally as it would link SoCo to South Shore Central. Has there been any updates on the possibility of the School for the Deaf selling their property along Congress?

^ I recall that mentioned on this forum a long time ago (maybe more than a year ago). I just skimmed through a bunch of stuff and couldn't find the reference. There was an article talking about MUD for the entirety of the grassy stretch from Nellie to the creek, if I recall correctly.

I do think it could work - they could even tie it into the school and connect SoCo with South Shore, like you mentioned, Jdawgboy, and perhaps have some outdoor eating space or something to protect the huge trees there. Could be fun.

This is not happening. The Texas School for the Deaf is receiving over $200M from the state for the campus renovation/expansion starting next year. TSD is here to stay forever. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't think he was saying that the school should go away; he was only asking about the land along Congress. No one is suggesting the school should go away.

The school is not going anywhere nor should it. The only piece of their property in question is the strip of land which borders Congress Ave. There was an article as drummer mentioned regarding the possibility that they might sell the strip of land. The school itself would not be affected. I was just asking if anyone had heard or seen any updates about that? If I remember correctly, it was only a possible option that they could do.

Got it, thanks for the clarification. :) I agree about the strip of land. It should be redeveloped. Too many homeless people set their camps there.

It seems to me that it would be a wise financial decision for the school also. If they sold it now, when the market is red hot, think of how much they could bring in...it's prime real estate.

Yes, it would be good to see more density while preserving some of the good old stuff. A right of first refusal for the old tenants is a good start.
Just drove up Burnet Rd this weekend and noticed the new Pour House pub on the ground floor of a 5 story mixed use development.

Welcome to the forum. It's great to see new posters. Feel free to join into the conversation in any of the threads.:cheers:

Having more shops/restaurants on that strip would be really cool. It'd extend South Congress and make it even more vibrant.

I don't believe TSD should move. I like that they've been there so long. But that strip of land is not used by them, from what I can tell. Sell it and stipulate the buyer has to put up a nice privacy fence or wall.

Developer's are seeking approval for a large mixed use PUD where Hooters and all that surface parking is currently located. The tallest building(s) would be 195'. That's decent height for south of the river.

Austin Environmental Commission: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=267433

Community Impact: https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...vironmentally/

One member of the Environmental Commission - Mary Ann Neely - that will decide if the PUD is approved seems rather anti-development:

“I’m tired of these PUDs that want a whole lot of space, but do very little to give our city something special,” Neely said. “These aren’t special. I’m tired of PUDs coming up that don’t make Austin a better place.”

She apparently doesn't like dense or urban development downtown. Just about anything would be better than that huge parking lot and a Hooters.

"Something special" is a pretty subjective way of describing anything, by the way...perhaps lots of people think that PUDs often provide something special - namely more places to live, shop, eat, work, etc., that don't push folks out to the suburbs and choke freeways and neighborhood roads even more than they already are...perhaps they should consider the environmental impact of not providing more dense development in the core. ;)

Was skimming over the PDF file and right at the beginning something caught my eye. Why in the world is that block even considered part of the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood planning area? It isn't in the neighborhood, it's not event right up against it. How many blocks do neighborhood planning areas go beyond their actual boundaries? 1-2-3 or more?

If we were talking about the southwest corner of S.1st and Barton Creek where Wataburger is, then it would be right up against the neighborhood. I just don't see the reasoning behind it other than blocking redevelopment of the site which should be high density.

^ Good point. I didn't catch that. It truly is a severely underutilized location at present. Perhaps the neighborhood thinks that Hooters and a large surface lot is a better source of "something special" for the community.

Hey, that Hooters is the "heart and soul of South Austin" ever since we lost the Taco Cabana on South Lamar and Riverside.

Ha. Suburban housewives like Hooters more than PUDs. There, I said it.

Anyway, yes, we need that parking lot there. Where else are the grackles and pigeons going to fight over stray french fries?

You obviously don't belong on any City of Austin commission responsible for urban planning. :)

Hey, if they would let me conference in through Skype and accommodate a 13 to 14 hour time difference, I'm all in! :cheers:

They can just join the rest of their friends over at HEB Hancock, they're missing out on the party.

Redevelopment partner selected to shape future of sprawling Statesman property

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...489&j=76993721

It's great that Austin based companies are being chosen for projects such as this but Endeavor really needs to push the envelope with architectural design.

100% agreed. Such a prominent location deserves high quality architecture. If they want to stick with an Austin architect, then Michael Hsu should be a front runner.

If it's Endeavor, I'm sure it's gonna be pretty good. I've been consistently impressed with the projects, planning and designs they've put out in the past.

:cheers:

I'm excited for the potential of this site. I trust (hope) that such a prominent location that would be a significant statement from any firm will yield something quality.

I especially like this point from the article:

The only thing is it doesn't look like the tallest portion will be over 400 feet going by the South Shore Central overlay. I guess that could change but it seems like the city doesn't want anything over 400 feet south of the river.

Or in the rest of the city for that matter, haha. I'm okay with 400 feet as the max south of the river. I want to see more height north of the river, especially utilizing areas without the CVC restrictions.

Whether the tallest portion can be 400' or not doesn't mean it will be 400'. After all, if we can only get 400' towers generally north of the river, I doubt we'll get any that tall in an untested part of downtown.

Perhaps it is high quality but can we really say that Michael Hsu "pushes the envelope" architecturally?

Sorry, I mean, I guess people like that stuff, but personally I favor architecture that's more classic/traditional-looking and/or curvy. Here are some examples of things I'd like to see in Austin:

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/F48WPCC.jpg

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/ptdBn5h.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Ok2h3GJ.jpg

Those are nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Traditional style is built to be compatible with nearby existing character. Austin doesn't have much (if any) of that traditional style. South Shore area is a clean slate, architecturally. There's very little existing neighborhood character to match.