Fascinating … I’m excited for this development.

I don't think I've seen anyone share this article on here.


Affordable housing units at center of dispute for new project at Statesman site
The city council is expected to review plans at its meeting on Thursday.


https://www.kvue.com/article/money/e...6-9931fcad59c0

Kathie Tovo is a scourge upon this city.

Rezoning vote for old Statesman site delayed

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...Pos=6#cxrecs_s

Mike Christen – Staff Writer, Austin Business Journal
Sep 2, 2022

The future of the former Austin-American Statesman headquarters remains to be decided.

Austin City Council on Sept. 1 postponed a second reading on whether to rezone 305 South Congress Ave. to allow for its transformation into a major mixed-use development. Prior to reaching that item the agenda, Council chose to end the meeting at about 10:30 p.m., more than 12 hours after it began.

The item could return to future Council meetings on Sept. 15 and Sept. 29.

Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group LLC wants to rezone the 19-acre tract as a planned unit development so it can build higher than city ordinances would otherwise allow. The so-called Statesman PUD could have 1,378 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of offices, a 275-room hotel and 150,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space across six towers, according to previously released plans.

The proposal has been working through City Hall for months, and received first reading approval in April. However, it remains the subject of debate over how much affordable housing and other community benefits are included. Council previously postponed voting on July 28.

During the public comment portion of the Sept. 1 meeting, similar concerns were raised, with resident Bill Oliver taking the podium with resident Bill Oliver taking the podium with a guitar in hand signing a recommendation that the city should turn the entire property into a park.

Others shared that they would like to see the property be transformed into more affordable housing than what is being offered by the developer. Endeavor previously proposed making at least 4% of the project's residential units income-restricted affordable housing, in accordance with the city’s South Central Waterfront Initiative.

"We can't allow developers to continue business as usual," said Rachel Melendez, a member of hospitality union Unite Here Local 23. "You have an opportunity right now to decide what kind of city we are going to live in and what kind of city we are going to have."

Proponents of the plan say it is needed to bring density and more housing to the south side of Lady Bird Lake as Austin rapidly grows. They also point out the Statesman PUD is expected to be a catalyst for development of the wider South Central Waterfront, which encompasses 118 acres.

Why 4%? Why can't it be a bit bigger, like at least 10%?

From what I've read they're trying to balance not only the affordable housing component, but also the amount of parkland and additional infrastructure needed for the project. That said . . . I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot more wiggle room there.

Proposed Statesman redevelopment postponed for third time

Developers still confident they'll get approval

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...d-sept-15.html

Austin City Council has again postponed a rezoning request that would transform the southern banks of Lady Bird Lake near downtown with commercial and residential towers along South Congress Avenue.

Brought forth by Endeavor Real Estate Group LLC, the massive and contentious development plan of the Austin American-Statesman’s longtime home at 305 S. Congress Ave. will effectively expand Austin’s Central Business District across the waters of the Colorado River.

Set to be discussed during a Sept. 16 meeting, the project is now planned to be reviewed by City Council on Sept. 29 so city staff can have more time to craft a proposal that includes input from some of the council members and members of the Austin Planning Commission.

The vast 19-acre project, directly adjacent to the Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, is planned to include 1,378 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of offices, a 275-room hotel and 150,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space across six towers — with its tallest reaching a height of 524 feet, or about 47 stories.

Like many of the current projects under consideration by Austin city officials, the request has been met with friction regarding exactly how many affordable housing units the new development will create for the city.

Endeavor previously proposed making at least 4% of the project's residential units income-restricted affordable housing, in accordance with the city’s South Central Waterfront Initiative, but members of City Council have shared a desire to see the developer dedicate 10% of its residential units for below market rates.

“This is going to work out,” Richard Suttle, a real estate attorney who represents Endeavor, said.

The project, which would be erected on one of Austin’s most prized pieces of land owned by the media empire Cox family, is a keystone project for the waterfront plan, which covers 118 acres and 32 private properties situated along the south shore of Lady Bird Lake.

“We are just now discussing the details," Suttle said. "There are only so many dollars and if you create more tax base, you have more dollars to spend on affordable housing. I just keep telling people it is just math. We are doing their fair share and the city needs to do their share.”

Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group LLC is the project’s master developer for the land owners and Chicago-based architecture and urban planning firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP is leading design efforts.

Suttle, a real estate attorney with Ambrust & Brown PLLC, previously proposed that Endeavor could immediately begin to transition a portion of its nearby property — suggesting that the firm's Lake at South Congress, a 207-apartment community nearby at 422 W. Riverside Dr., dedicate apartments as income-restricted units in exchange for those at the Statesman site.

Instead of waiting 10 years to construct the 55 affordable housing units located within the planned development, Suttle said the units could be made available within months of the project’s approval.

The city has yet to take up the offer.

The Statesman redevelopment proposal, perhaps the largest project currently being considered in Central Austin, has bounced about City Hall for much of the year. The rezoning request received its first approved reading in April. Council previously postponed voting on the rezoning request on July 28 and again on Sept. 1.

We're in the middle of a massive affordability crisis and the City keeps dragging their feet. Shameful.

Hey, City of Austin, DO NOT SCREW THIS UP. Thank you.

"Don't build anything too big but also build more cheap units" -- Austin City Council, once again demonstrating its genius for real estate economics.

We need to stop focusing on below-market rates and focus instead on preventing the market rate from further spiraling out of control, and the only way to do that is to build a ton of market-rate units.

.

This one, Waterline, the Perennial, and Block 16 are the developments I’m most excited about. And any other supertalls revealed or that come to be in the future.

This one is a game changer for SoCo. It’ll expand and stretch the skyline to the other side of the river with a very thoughtful design on ascending height for each of the 6 highrises in this project. This project is like catching lightening in the bottle. It’s so high quality with its green space integration and multi-use factor. It utilizes the riverbank recreation so well. And it begins furthering development, height, and the continually evolving Austin skyline to new previously uncharted territories.

The added bonus is that it replaces something that is privatized and not accessible to the public and no longer belongs there (the old newspaper site) all in one process.

starting to think the city council flat out doesn't want this to happen

'Progress is being made' on rezoning request for huge Statesman PUD

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...rdability.html

Despite Austin City Council's decision to again postpone addressing a rezoning request that could result in the transformation of the former Austin-American Statesman headquarters into a district of mixed-use towers, there are signs developer Endeavor Real Estate Group LLC is making progress.

City Council on Sept. 29 did not vote on the request for a planned unit development, or PUD, for the property at 305 S. Congress Ave. It was the fourth postponement of the PUD vote, which would allow Endeavor to build taller and denser on the 19-acre tract just south of Lady Bird Lake than typically allowed.

"I think we can actually get through this," Mayor Steve Adler said.

At stake is a plan to build 1.5 million square feet of office space, more than 1.6 million square feet of residential space, 220,000 square feet of hotel space and 150,000 square feet of retail space across six towers. 305 South Congress would also integrate into Austin’s South Central Waterfront Initiative, the city's long-term vision to bring dense, mixed-use development to the south side of Lady Bird Lake.

Council voted 10-0-1, with Council Member Vanessa Fuentes absent, to punt the vote to its Oct. 13 meeting.

"We were very pleased that the City Council deliberated on so many of the issues surrounding the project," said attorney Richard Suttle of Armbrust & Brown PLLC, representing Endeavor. "The mayor did a masterful job of organizing and leading the productive discussion. While an actual vote was postponed, many questions were answered and direction was given to us and the city staff. Council members were able to express their interests and the feedback was constructive. And many issues were resolved. It appears progress is being made."

Sent an email to Council on this Thursday morning. You're welcome ;)

In all seriousness, it seems like Suttle is the man you need when you want to get things done. I just hate the dragging out of things like this that could have been started a year ago.

I don't mind council taking some time here and it doesn't appear Endeavor does either, there are a lot of complexities with this project including a new street grid, interaction with the lake and future proofing a new street grid for other adjacent developments that may happen as this part of the city reintegrates with the the neighborhoods around it.

Agreed. While council's definitely slowed the roll here, they're also trying to use their leverage to get as much as they can before parting with that parcel. I take the "negotiations are ongoing but progressing well" talk at face value -- especially, as you say, because it's coming from Endeavor.

Agreed -- Endeavor might not make the most groundbreaking architecture, but they are probably the Austin-area developer I would trust the most to not exaggerate on timelines or hype up a project that isn't happening. I can barely even recall a project they've been involved in that wasn't fully completed (on time or close to it) after they'd made an official announcement.

Apparently, this up for 3rd reading today, if it does not get postponed again. Below is an article summing up the positions:

https://theaustinbulldog.org/ladybir...lqsM9Sk8s6Yq-A

I take it this was postponed yet again.

Yes, that is my understanding. This Council is never in a hurry to make a decision.

This thing is going to get postponed right into a likely deep economic recession. We may not see any redevelopment of this site for another ten years.

If I remember correctly (or incorrectly) - I thought the council can only punt things down-the-road a certain number of times before they are forced to make a decision - or one is made automatically.

Anyone know? This it ridiculous. This project is a no-brainer.

I know Boards and Commissions are limited in postponements, but I don't know about the CC. They should be.

Ugh so annoying they won’t just approve!

no brainer?

i could think of ten better ideas for austinites than this corporate office park in a single day

I mean, of course you can think of something better. We probably all can. But in the universe of what's happening now, the option is to either approve the thing and move forward or twiddle around at the edges with more affordable housing. We ain't going backwards from here.

If the economy is going to be that bad construction will never start on this project regardless.

i've yo-yo'd in my mind on this project but now i'm firmly in the "no" camp. i think we can ask much more of this parcel. this does not raise the bar. all our waterfront development needs to serve a massive public good, this is woefully short.

in many other parts of town, green lighting this is a no brainer. but not here

My only real issue with the project is the grid is basically a death trap for peds in an area that needs to not be that.

Idk, it seems like a pretty standard grid with pretty decent walkability. Especially compared to the surrounding area which is virtually grid-less.

I don't completely disagree with you. Some sort of project which "serves a massive 'public' good" would be really nice. However, this is private property. The City of Austin does not own this site.

A private owner is always going to (and should) strive to find the highest and best use for their land. The government would be going down a very dangerous path in telling private owners what to do with their property - especially when they are adhering to current entitlements/guidelines.

"By use, the proposal is broken up into 1.65 million square feet of residential space, 1.5 million square feet of office space, a 220,000-square-foot hotel and 150,000 square feet of mixed commercial space." -Endeavor

1.65M square feet of residential is pretty great and the % of affordable units is almost guaranteed to increase when the negotiations are all wrapped up. It reminds me a lot of what Two Trees is doing in Williamsburg at the old Domino Sugar factory. Mixed use buildings with private development of parks along the waterfront. It's by-far one of the most loved parks in all of Brooklyn.

I agree this project could go farther - I'd love to see soemthing like Brickell City Center in Miami, with multi-story shopping & restaurants spanning multiple blocks. We need more retail/shopping options in the downtown area.

Those mall-like developments never end up being that great, though. Brickell City Center, Hudson Yards, Brookfield Place, etc. never feel as dynamic as places with street-facing storefronts. I'm right there with you though for rallying for as much retail as possible. I'd just prefer using it to activate the street vs some multi-story mall.

I dunno, I was just there and I thought it was pretty awesome. But you're right, a grid of pedestrian streets would be a lot better.

I meant where barton springs and congress meet. Its now like a 5 way monstrosity.

I updated the status to "Approved" because the CC approved it on 3rd reading last night.

The Statesman has details on the council discussions and approval

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...d/69697136007/

Kind of a failure since it won't have affordable housing, and they're opting to push it to the boonies instead. Boo. Basically what we're getting is cheap poorly built homes on the outskirts of Austin, not something that is truly affordable since those people will have to commute long distances.

Excited to see more concrete renders of what this is gonna look like. Hopefully its not too bland.

South Lamar is “the boonies”?

The location is being reported as “within a few miles”, while Adler had an amendment that was more specific


“The fee-in-lieu may be utilized within a one and a half mile distance of the project boundaries on a major transit corridor with MetroRapid transit infrastructure in partnership with a an organization that has a track record of providing deeply affordable housing.”

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=398366

Is that what ended up passing?

Waaaayyyy more affordable housing will be able to be built on South Lamar vs at this location. This was actually a great compromise and will yield more housing.

South Lamar is a desirable of a location. It's not like they're shoving these out to some I35 access road or something.

Where exactly on South Lamar will the "affordable" housing be built. What kind of housing?

My question is what would have been an affordable price tag for a residence vs an unaffordable asking price on this prime location. Does this mean the affordable housing would be made with shitty materials and be much smaller or would identical units go for vastly different prices? I would not be happy if my neighbor was paying half of what I was paying for the exact same unit.

I re examined my preconception and it's confirmed. I would not be happy paying more for the same unit. It btw has nothing to do with my belief system. Why would you bother to make this personal?

So affordable housing should be subpar housing? I don't get this.

The idea behind affordable housing is to help people that need help. I don't understand why people get pissed off by such things.

"I would not be happy if my neighbor was paying half of what I was paying for the exact same unit."

I understand the sentiment, but this is in fact how it typically works. I think a good way to think of it is in the framing of a teacher who teaches at Zilker Elementary. They clearly cannot afford to live in central Austin, but they provide enormous value to their community and it would be very beneficial for them to be able to actually live in the community that they teach in. Providing them subsidized housing would benefit all parties even if they are technically paying less than their neighbor for the same apartment.

There are obviously examples that are less ideal, but overall I think its important for people to be able to live in the places they work and it creates a dynamic city. But also as a baseline, we need to build so much more housing to actually solve our systematic affordability issue. Supply >> Demand

Doesn't anyone read the posts before commenting on them? I was asking comparative questions to understand the cost of affordable housing. What takes the hit, quality or budget. No where in my post was I suggesting sub par should be the norm. No where in my post did I say I was pissed off with providing affordable housing to those in need. What I admit to saying is I wouldn't be happy paying more for the same product. That goes for anything. That doesn't make me anti affordable housing. And I still don't understand how they incorporate affordable housing into the build. Are there designated basic units without upgrades or do they simply charge less for a certain amount of similar units? What is the qualifier?