There or at COTA. Other thread shows it getting quite a little amusement park.

COTA would be a disaster for baseball IMO. There are 162 games per season. The only sport I could see working there would be the NFL.

Well, 81 for home games. There's enough parking around downtown and I'm sure people are okay with walking to the venue. If Austin City Limits can attract 75k people a day for 6 days of the year then having a 40k capacity stadium shouldn't be that big of a deal

But this is all a dream lmao :shrug:

Baseball needs to be near the population center. Too many games in the middle of the week.

I agree that our future professional sports teams all seem destined for the domain area.

Yes, 81 home games. I said that COTA would be a disaster, not a location near downtown. I agree that the statesmen site would be a cool stadium location, though congress, riverside, and barton springs road would certainly be quite congested on any gameday. As I mentioned, the new pedestrian bridge and the blue line would be critical to that working.

Anyway it probably doesn't happen just because this site will get developed by something more profitable first.. Hence why I think the domain area is more likely for a stadium.

I think a ballpark would be great off of Cesar Chavez. Like somewhere where Austin Pets Alive is right now. I think that would work.

I mean, its an MLB stadium - so about 20K folks for a game, big games or weekend games would push closer to 50K. Its easily something downtown can absorb as it absorbs much more than that on a typical non-covid workday.

Hell, its probably not far off how many people are downtown to party on the weekends and obviously a fraction of what UT football does.

I think the issue will be more that the land its on is super valuable *and* the Domain is the center of the population of the metro area. I also don't mind the Domain/North Burnet turning into an area with sporting events and mixed use development. Especially if we get a lot of walkable land around the stadium like we're going to get once Verde Square is up and going.

Anyway this is all off-topic. I am *extremely* excited for the South Shore development. It will hopefully bring good street use and pedestrian access that can work as an extension of SoCo and downtown and spur a lot of infill development between the heart of SoCo and make it more walkable to downtown especially with light-rail coming in.

I remember reading in a posting here the Ryans are working on bringing an MLB team here and scouting land near the Domain. Long term process though but getting the land now would a good thing.

Potential stadium site
 

Yes, this is totally off topic at this point but does anyone know if there’s redevelopment chatter around the Barton Creek Square mall site. That would be the absolute BEST site for a stadium: panoramic views of downtown from every seat.

It funny I emailed Simon and told them they should start over with that mail and make it outdoors like the domain to take advantage of the views. They responded and said I should check out the updates they have done inside. Lol

Not sure if this would be practical but I could see a mixed-use re-development like 'The Battery' in Atlanta on both the Statesman and Mall's sites. The MLB Braves' Sun Trust Park is the centerpiece of this complex. I had the chance to walk around it this summer enjoyed it.

https://batteryatl.com/
https://www.alsd.com/content/battery...nt-and-revenue


https://www.alsd.com/sites/default/f...%20Atlanta.jpg

https://atlanta.cbslocal.com/wp-cont...4&h=576&crop=1

Spoken like a dying, backward thinking company. The parking lots around the mall are MASSIVE. The redevelopment potential of those lots is off the charts. If only they were more forward thinking...

Yeah - that news broke last year. The Athletics are also in search of a new home since they aren't getting a new stadium in Oakland.

This is what I would *love* to see the Domain/North Burnet Gateway become with Q2 stadium and (hopefully) future major league sports teams. Austin FC bring about 21 or so annual matches to the area an NHL team would bring about double that and an MLB 4x that. It would be a really nice way to integrate stadiums into a mixed use environment with offices and residential and hotels with sports bars and dining destinations in the immediate area.

Would go a long way to giving the area personality beyond simon malls.

Agreed. The Domain area should play host to all future mature sports stadiums. It would really give the area a kind of cultural raison detre.

I would honestly prefer the A's to move to Austin instead of Las Vegas. The team doesn't have to travel that much since their division rivals are the Rangers and Astros haha

Hope y'all share your thoughts with Planning Commission https://austintexas.granicus.com/boa...a392f100751dbe They are a bit more of a NIMBY-curious group than is ideal but currently they are largely hearing from owners of expensive single family zoned homes saying silly things like “needs more parking” (as though 4,000 stalls with a Blue Line station on the site isn’t enough…) and “too tall” (dumb). The city can require shorter buildings that chew up more land leaving less space for parks or go vertical—let’s go vertical and maximize tax base and generate transit ridership! We’ll also hear more about Affordable (subsidized) housing here but this form of construction does not lend itself to be Affordable. HOA fees on even a small place in a well-amenitized building can run $400+/month and can adjust upward at any time. We can't water this thing down to appease folks who just want to drive their single-occupant vehicle around as easily as possible. This is a once in a century opportunity for Austin--let's get it right!

They apparently have several locations around the Vegas strip under consideration for a new stadium. So it seems that Vegas will be their landing spot. The positive spin on that -- that would be one less city that Austin would have to compete against for other potential expansions and/or relocations (Tampa Bay). Oakland won't be getting another team any time soon either.

Just emailed all 15 board people. High density, transit-oriented development ftw!

This is up for a vote at tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting. There are a few backup files, but no new info for those who have been following this.

https://www.austintexas.gov/citycler...tings/40_1.htm

the splash video on the home page is worth a watch. Lots of great 3d visualizations and flybys of the whole project.

Also: did we know that almost 100% of onsite parking will be underground? I for one did not.

The rail/pedestrian bridge is simple and nice.

This is awesome; I really hope this project happens

Leave it to our commissions and council to screw this up.

The Planning Commission can usually be depended upon to promote density. It's the City Council and some of the other boards and commissions that fail.

The Crockett Tract south of the Statesman is the next big play. Most of those old offices are leased to TxDOT, and they are building a new campus in Southeast Austin.

hilarious at :11 into the video they show a screen shot of the street with about 30 people (including a mother with a stroller) walking in the middle of the street with one car parked on the side. a shot that will literally never happen in real life.

its a shame this is not being developed along with 305 S Congress. One enormous development.

I've never even heard of this project! :shrug:

Its nothing yet.

And probably wont be a project until after the next Texas Legislative Session. I believe the state cannot sale off any land unless the Legislature approves, so the TXDOT building will be around awhile longer even after they move to their new facility.

My big hope is that next session the Leg goes into RE overdrive and sells off (in no particular order): Hobby, the State Parking garage, and all the stuff in South Shore.

Time to get the next tranch of development kickstarted, yo.

It is my understanding that the State of Texas does not own the TXDOT South Shore Campus. Instead, it is (was) a long-term lessee.
TCAD Info: https://stage.travis.prodigycad.com/...-detail/190741
Information about Current Owner: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0802208459

SOM features this project on their website now:

https://www.som.com/projects/305-south-congress-avenue/

The CC approved the zoning change.

The blue line bridge will have a pedestrian path along with the rail, right? I mean, imagine all of this connecting over to 98 RR and Rainey. Going to really reorient downtown.

https://i.imgur.com/yIF5woC.png

https://i.imgur.com/r8FNM67.jpg

The news of the CC approving the zoning change really softened the blow of the Project Connect estimates doubling

There's a lot of grumbling about the fact that these towers will have only 4% affordable housing units.

People keep looking for affordable housing on real estate costing 10s of millions of dollars with skyscrapers/projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. That will be a fail every time.

I'm sure it's been discussed but this is the worst intersection I've ever seen. It's giving me heartburn just looking at it.

https://i.imgur.com/LnzM8DS.png

It’s really only a slightly janky 4 way stop. It’s harder for peds, tbh.

I'm more concerned about the road fading into the rail line and apartment building in the lower left corner than the intersection itself...:sly:

@The ATX, there are sources for incorporating affordable housing. If the cost were truly a barrier the Developer could have asked Austin HFC to provide gap financing on a unit basis. The Developer could have asked city council to provide some sort of property tax abatement (especially for 49/51 Workforce housing). They could have asked for more height. Limiting the number of affordable housing units is about keeping people out.

Choosing to ascribe evil or nefarious motivations to literally everything is one of the internet’s worst personal habits.

One could make the same argument that restricting certain units to a wage cap is about keeping the other side of the demographic out.

I believe there is an overlay involved near the lake and the neighborhood is already crapping about the possibility of 525' at Congress and Barton Springs.



I don't believe anyone is deliberately "limiting" the number of affordable residences. They simply may not be providing the number you would like to see.

I'm all for affordable housing. Instead of bashing developers, maybe citizens should push the city more?!? Hasn't Austin passed several hundred million dollars in affordable housing bonds over the past decade? If so, what is the city doing with it? Just curious.

Austin at Large: Storms Along the Waterfront

How much should the city invest in the Statesman PUD? Zero, or $400 million?

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news...he-waterfront/

And now we're back at 305 S. Congress, the former home of the Austin American-Statesman, the place we used to call the Batcave. This 13-acre site's owners – the profoundly wealthy Cox family of Atlanta, which sold the paper itself in 2018 – have partnered with Endeavor Real Estate Group to create a $2 billion-ish redevelopment (now referred to as the Statesman PUD, for planned unit development) should the city agree. Back in April, Planning Commission and Council did agree – the latter on first reading – but with lots of amendments and heavy community pressure on Endeavor and its agent, Richard Suttle, to do better, mostly on affordability.

Endeavor may indeed do better; Suttle has hinted the developer may buy up existing apartments in the South Central Waterfront district and make those affordable, so it can sell the posh condos it plans for the Batcave for top dollar. But Endeavor's response to community pressure so far has been to plead for city funding to help it deliver community benefits, because without it their plan to maximize the property values at the Statesman site (and the future tax revenue to the city) doesn't pencil out right now, at the top of the market and with construction prices and timelines growing like weeds.

Let's Ask the Consultants
Back in 2020, the city paid ECONorth­west, a Portland firm with a good reputation in affordable housing circles, to test Endeavor's claims that this very expensive dirt at a focal point of Austin culture – where Downtown meets SoCo – is not feasible to build out without city assistance. They said it checked out, to the tune of $140 million or so, which ECONorthwest thought could be resolved as market conditions improved (remember, this was six months into COVID).

Well, they sure have improved! So at the April 7 meeting, Council asked for an update of this study to price out the Statesman PUD, with all the community benefits offered and required so far, plus the six proposed amendments that had a price tag. The Housing & Planning Department went to its go-to consultant, Economic & Planning Systems of Oakland, who's been working with the city on deals like this in Austin since the 1990s.

And guess what they found? In a 23-page memo drafted earlier this month, EPS says the financing gap has grown, not shrunk, as construction costs have inflated; the unmet portion of the price tag is now between $238 million and $400 million. The three amendments asking for infrastructure – mostly extending Barton Springs Road into the site, which is also the southern end of Project Connect's Blue Line Bridge – price out to $28.7 million. And the affordable housing demands widen the gap further; the most expensive of these, imposed at first reading by Council Member Kathie Tovo, will cost an additional $266 million.

Are you thinking, "WTF? Is this thing going to be built of pure gold? What could possibly justify the city taking a whole housing bond's worth of spending off a rich developer's hands? And how is it possible that a 3.6 million-square-foot project – that's about 6.5 Frost Bank Towers – in Austin, right on the lake, right now, cannot pay for itself?" But you also may be thinking, "That sounds really cool! It's on the Blue Line? How long before I can live there?"

I Say: ¿Por Qué No los Dos?
Remember that part of the problem – which I wrote about earlier this year – is that the South Central Waterfront was never properly platted or supplied with utilities, drainage, internal roads, and so forth; it was all floodplain until Longhorn Dam was built in 1962, and nobody really knows what lurks under the Batcave's parking lagoon. That means money needs to be spent just to bring things up to code, so to speak. Overlaid on that are the projects included in the South Central Waterfront community visioning plan adopted by the city in 2016. It would not be weird for the city to pay for some of this; that's why PUD zoning cases are all negotiations, all dealmaking.

Late last year, the city planted the seeds of a fledgling public-private partnership, formally establishing a tax increment financing district for the South Central Waterfront, but setting the increment at 0% (it can change it at any time). That's the percentage of tax revenue generated within the SCW that would be set aside to cover the cost of the city's share of the infrastructure, rather than flowing into the General Fund. This is what the city did at Mueller and at Seaholm – the latter of which is comparable in area, if not scale, to the Statesman PUD – but it owned those properties. Again, rich people own the Batcave who could afford to cover the nine-digit gap between Endeavor's financing and the city's demands.

Suttle argues that the rest of the tax revenue from the Statesman PUD, beyond the increment, will be as high as it possibly could be, and not subject to state-imposed revenue caps, and that alone should be worth some city skin in the game. On the other side, Save Our Springs Alliance leader Bill Bunch, in a letter to the Austin Monitor that he shared with the Chronicle, calls the EPS analysis "absurd" and "worthless," adding, "Its whole premise – that the most high dollar real-estate in [Texas] somehow just can't make a profit without taxpayer handouts is ridiculous." Perhaps they are both correct? We'll see what Council decides.