Texas Capitol Complex & North Austin Complex Projects Update Thread
 

http://www.statesman.com/business/ne...inglePage=true

This Is very great news
:cheers:

I agree that it's good news, but it seems half-baked. It sounds like TFC has not had any discussions with DPS, THC or others.

http://downtownaustinblog.org/2010/0...ontent=Twitter

Nice write up on the effort... don't forget we can all participate in vision development next week - see blog post for details.

I'm encouraged and hoping we're not being paid lip-service by the Texas Facilities Comish. Housing civic-employees (at least) makes so much sense. The Capitol Complex holds vast potential for bringing affordable housing into downtown Austin. It's one thing to tell a private land owner how they need to develop their residential tower, it's another to have a surplus of underutilized publically owned land sitting in the middle of the Urban Core.

Love the fact that the state may get smarter bout the land use around the Capitol. We need more housing in the area.

One of the good things about the possibility of this actually happening at some point is that one of the people steering this effort, Terry Keel lives in the area..... Cambridge Tower. That is not an endorsement of his politics.... but he not only live downtown, but in the Cap Complex area... so he may better understand the potential and needs of the area. Lets hope.

I am really happy to see the discussion of Affordable housing in the uptown area. Is it perfect for it. There are truly sooo many state and University employees that would live in the area. (Many Profs, lobbyist and other state folks live in Cambridge.)

I have to do a big, potentially unpopular, however.

As far as students go... a fair # of students live in many downtown buildings as it is.... but, I would not want to see a higher concentration. Sorry,I am sure his will not set well with all, but i live in a downtown building with a small student population. A few is fine, but when an area turns predominately student it pushes up the transient factor ( as in mobility of resident, not street people) and makes for a higher percentage of less conscience neighbors. .... at least in the undergrad population. Both make for a less stable neighborhood. AND what we are wanting is a neighborhood.! And, the more a building is perceived as student housing, the less likely professionals and families ( including the ones with children) will move in.... affecting value. Gotta be aware of that.

carried out over several decades

WTF?

I'm 26.... I might get to see 80-90 percent of these projects pull through. :D

Update. It sounds like a good idea. They're trying to get ahead of rental rate hikes in 6 years when 70 percent of the contracts for the state's leased space is up.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-..._comments_list
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3...mplexplan2.jpg

At least one, maybe two of these model buildings seem to be about 500 feet tall. The white building with the barrel vaulted roof to the right is 242 feet tall, and the model next to it is at least twice as tall. By the way, the 2nd tall model across the street from the Bullock Museum is the same block that the planetarium is planned for. So maybe they're considering pairing the tower with the museum to help get the museum built. The other tall model to the left seems to be around 325 feet or so.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6822/...mplexplan3.jpg

Wow, thats pretty impressive, lets see if any of it comes to fruition though. It looks like in front of the capitol a building will be blocking the view of it from Congress, Im sure that wouldnt happen.

Those are very conceptual. The building on the right (east side) as seen in the first image is right next to 1005 Congress. That wouldn't block the view. 1005 Congress is itself around 130 feet tall. The site for the new building next to it was originally occupied by the old Travis County Courthouse that was demolished in 1964. Right now it's just a parking lot. As for the building across Congress with the odd shape, I'm not sure what they're showing with that. But I'm doubtful that any project would take that shape. I think these models are only to show the lots that are currently undeveloped and are only meant to show what size envelop of a building we could possibly see there. Still, I doubt anything would look like that.

While it's okay for privately ran service companies to do their business, providing services, in state owned buildings, I'm against private companies leasing office space in state owned buildings that pay no property taxes.
There's just no way the City of Austin or Travis County could tax them either.

Private interests, I'm suggesting lobbyists, already have too easy access to state officials and legislatures. Having them within one building is making it far too easy for shady deals to occur. Let's, at least, make them have to cross city streets to make them.

Well, they darn sure better not mess with Scholz's.

http://www.statesman.com/business/st...inglePage=true

If this happens, it could mean 6 to 7 million square feet of development/redevelopment in the Capitol Complex. The plan is to develop the empty parking lots and redevelop the hulking parking garages. Some of the space would be state offices, while other space would be the private sector with everything from commercial office space to residential, hotel and retail. There's even a planetarium planned with a 655 foot 47-story tower attached.

http://www.statesman.com/business/re...l-2399766.html

http://www.statesman.com/business/re...d-2439529.html

Its obvious she wants to protect HER view and I really can't blame her for that. But she's seems a bit arrogant and snooty to me in the way she makes her point. Her Walmart analogy is one example, and the way she appears to be rallying others to share her opinion. Yes Riddle, your main objection IS because you live next door. And the view you wish to protect IS mostly your view and that of a select few. But like so many other Liberals in this town, just keep telling the rest of us what's best for us and thinly disguise it as a sincere gesture to get what you want. I have to wonder if she would be this vocal if she lived somewhere else. Oh well, maybe I'm way off...but she's annoying the shit out of me.

Well you are off base on two key things. A: Her view is not affected. THat was a misquote.She lives on the other side of the building. B: She is an Arch Conservative Republican. I live in the same building. There were many more offensive issues with the project that you can do your homework and search for in earlier posts.

I did your homework for you, General.

Why was student housing right across the street from a massive university a bad thing? Sorry I must of missed it in the discussion. You said it was suburban. Was that because it was only 5 stories? Or did you guys see a rendering?

Demand for the area along MLK will be for student housing, perhaps a hotel for state/university visitors and maybe office buildings for private firms that do business with the state or university.

What is desired are museums... big difference between demand and desire.

A agree with above poster... not sure student housing is wrong for this area. Student housing will acquire funding. Museums require long fund raising periods. I personally prefer a taller, denser structure than a mid rise for student housing... but its not wrong.

I have no problem with student housing (as long as I don't have to live by it. :)) A huge university like UT needs to have it nearby, and UT has been a huge part of Austin's growth engine. So I don't begrudge anybody who tries to build it by UT.

But back to my comment of not wanting to live by it. In a previous life before I was fortunate enough to be able to live in a decent neighborhood, I lived in an apartment complex in the Riverside/Pleasant Valley area. My building had a lot of UT students. They tended to get way too drunk on weekends and smash light fixtures, punch holes in the sheet rock in the hallways. The place was always littered with beer cans on the weekends and there was no sense of community because people moved in and out so frequently.

I love un-empathtic discussions. All development affects people, business and property value. We all fight for our property value. If this was "your" ( the generic you) neighnorhood I guaranty you would not be so "objective" about this. This was a property value fight plain and simple. When you move into a neighborhood you have a reasonable interest in how that neighborhood develops. DOWNTOWN IS NO DIFFERENT. It is a neighborhood. For people who are just observers it is easy to forget that and think residents downtown have less rights for some reason to protect property values.

I live in Cambridge. My view is not affected, but what affects anyones property value in my building affects mine. Having Student housing next to our building , especially built in the manor proposed would demisih my property value. Anyone would, believe me, take up the same fight. Funny this was we asked the developer if they had property value studies based on their building programs. They wouldn't answer! LOL!

There are areas near campus that are appropriate for student housing and areas that are not. This , is was argued is an area that is not. I happen to agree. As has been stated. It is in the State Complex, While there is a desire for housing, this neighborhood is better served in terms of stability by less transient residents who might actually contibute to the area. This is in an area that is being touted as a muesum district. There is much better use of that land. Lets get into proximity. They were proposing to build in such a way that exterior space would have been closer to existing property than any where in west Campus. ( yes really). Parking, they were not building enough spaces for all the residents. They were also so arrogant as to come to a meeting with neighboring residences with no idea of how thier development would impact our aminities area. They basically really didn;t care to play good neighbor. SO they get what they get.

Skip that. You are on an architectual forum for Christ sake. This was suburban apartment construction at its worse being built in the CBD! That should offend you enough. Yes , they had initial renderings at their presentation. It was awful. You should be up in arms for that.

Height. You need to be fully aware that lot is in one of the most cherised views in Austin . If you don't care about that, I invite you to leave Austin. I won't miss you. They were within the CVC. However, what no one has really looked at until now, it that, the height restrictions protect the view from the steps of the tower to the capitol. But any where below that.. including the fountain and all of University Drive, would have the Capitol cut off. Worse the view of the Capitol.... and all photographs from here on out would have had said crappy apt building..... rather, dorm.

So there are many reasons that an interested party in the development of the CBD, The Capitol Complex and the Museum district should be concerned even if you don't have empathey for the affected neighbors.

An office building or Condo would be great.

BTW... one branch of the State gov wants to dump this and another wants to keep it. Somehow Perry decided to change his mind this year and not object to the sale. We have severl Rebup officials in the building who are scratching their heads at this.

BTW ... as long as I am putting my neck out here. It also made me laugh that said Republicans who are suppose to be all about property owners rights were the first to fight this proposal. Stange bedfellows indeed!

Fire away!

MichaelB, I can honestly say I support you 100% on this matter out of respect to you and because I have no real vested interest. I did my homework, thanks LoneStarMike, and this still all boils down to what you and your neighbors don't want built next door to you. I like your explanation better, honest and to the point. After reading the AAS article where Riddle is quoted a few times, I was annoyed the way she stated her points. Just my opinion and that's what prompted my post. Ok, Riddle's not a Liberal. But she lives in your building and coming and going, decisions made on that parking lot will effect her view even if not from her balcony. Just don't sell the public on it being a "treasure" and some BS about grandma's ring and Walmart, Riddle. But...spoken like a politician. Personally, I would like to see a well defined museum district so if I was at one, I can cross the street to get to the other, and then to the next one... If that was feasible and in the not too distant future, then I would be against adding mixed use amenities like student housing to the area. I do like the idea for a sculpture park, with underground parking as Riddle suggested for that lot as a good resting spot between museum visits and for viewing the surrounding area, but wouldn't that be like raising millions of dollar for a piece of land just to put a Walmart on it? oops...

And yes... I thought her quotes were stupid and did nothing to help. People see thru that crap! As you did! LOL! You should have heard some of the stuff the other littl old ladies were trying to pull. It does come down to owners/ property rights and such. So, as we all will do, I will protect my property and it's value all I can. Anyone who says they would not... probably is not a property owner.

I fought successfully each of the last 2 years I lived at my last house to keep Hart Hanks from turning the green belt behind my house into an expanded parking lot for their call center. I rallied my neighbors based on our property value dropping, safety, noise and light pollution, and surface parking wash-off pollution. A few years later, I drove by my old house and there's now a shiny new parking lot where the greenbelt once backed up to the neighborhood fence line. I don't know if I was the driving force that kept it away while I lived there, but I fought tooth and nail to protect my investment as I expect you are doing, so again...I support you 100% and wish you luck. I would not move into your building if student housing was next door.

I am kind of confused. Won't any building constructed on that site that is taller than one or two floors obstruct the view between campus and the capitol bldg.? For the sake of preserving a highly valued view, maybe nothing should be constructed on the site. Just a thought.

Well, they could build something on that block as long as it doesn't block the view. Since I've been reading the site plan reviews, any time a developer is planning something for a block that sits within one of the CVCs, they have to survey the land first and get approval from the city before they can move forward. I think they have to do that before they can even apply for a building permit. Something like AMLI Downtown could be built there and still preserve the view, but add nice density, housing and street level retail to the area.

I don't think anything tall should go there. Not because of the property values of those in the Cambridge possibly losing their views (that happens all the time to lots of people). But it is on one of the most important streets and probably the second most important view in the city (the view between the tower and capitol building along University). What ever goes there should not mess with that view.

To say one thing before going on to my next, to be clear before I state my point, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to protect your property rights. Student housing would hurt that, so I get it and of course don't hold that against anyone for going NIMBY on them. But the reality is that it is literally across the street from a 50k+ student university. That there is demand for student housing across the street from one of (if not the) largest university in the nation shouldn't surprise anyone.

But here is what I think would be best there. Older style retail in 2-3 story max separate buildings, no parking, with small 2-3k sq foot offices on the second/third floors and retail on the street level. That type of office is in super high demand by young start ups all over town, and it is a perfect area for them right there. Right now their only real options is the East Side or way up north. Making some of that sized offices available in downtown right across from campus is ideal. Plus with the street retail it could help bring some vibrancy back to the area. And best of all with the smaller buildings it saves that view from the fountain between the tower and capitol.

Again, the REAL issue here has to do with property values being affected by student housing going in on the property next to the residential tower. To enhance the argument against this from happening and to include support from people who aren't vested monetarily into the mix, you have to talk about the other tangibles which conveniently includes an important view corridor. Technically, since a "proper" condo or office tower wouldn't affect the property value as much, assumably, and not actually be objected to, then the view issue should be taken off the table as it can be considered hypocritical to the argument. HOWEVER, if I was in that situation, I would build as much support as I could to validate my case as far beyond my inner circle as possible and that includes talking about how the immediate issue of building a crappy suburban looking student housing complex on the lot next to a residential tower can destroy a historic view corridor. You have to use politics (salesmanship) to win over the general public, win that battle, and get ready to fight the next battle, or just compromise and accept the lesser of two evils. Damn I love this one.
MichaelB, you typically won't get any empathy from anyone who isn't affected, even from this forum, when we fought to keep Walgreens from building in front of where I live now because of light and noise issues not to mention the sheer size looming over our houses, the neighbors in the back of the hood rejoiced because of the convenience of having it near to them, but not on top of them like us. They called us nimbys' and we lost, but we got some compromises with earlier than they wanted closing times, no security lights pointing our way, and large trees to screen out the structure. You'll notice I don't pick on nimbys' as much as others do on this forum. I am one.

Anything higher than three floors on that site will pretty much eliminate the view from the campus to the capitol from anywhere down at street level below the UT Tower and along University. By the time a pedestrian hits the street at the edge of the campus, a taller building would cover up the view. I drove over there tonight and checked it out. The only place a view would survive with even a mid rise building would be from the terrace area underneath the UT Tower. Unless the state (or city) insists on having something low rise on that site, the view will be doomed going forward with any other kind of development.

Sculpture garden sounds great. Umlauf North.

That's kind of what I was thinking, too - just based on the image Kevin posted in reply 9 of this thread over a year and a half ago:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6822/...mplexplan3.jpg

Aren't we talking about that low-rise blue boxy-looking structure west of the Bob Bullock Museum and east of Cambridge Tower?

FWIW, I like the idea of the underground parking with the sculpture garden on top, too.

Yep, you get it! Thank you.

I have said a hundred times on here. We are all NIMBYS to some degree. LOL!

That has now beed proposed, but the state department who's job it is to profit form unused property really doesn't care. It's not how the law is set up. Perry had opposed the sale for a long time and this year for unknown reasons decided to drop his opposition.

There are folks who are trying to get this property use re-evaluated, but it has gone back up for sale already. The law would have to be re-examined ASAP. Probably not going to happen.

Folks at Cambridge can oppose building based on many things, but the CVC is not one of them. Many more folks and officials would have to be on board. So unless the state officals who are in the building can get someones ear quick.... the view will be gone. That is within the law.

yes, that is correct. That is just a "massing" rendering to show what volumes could be built.

The only way to not have the view from the lower mall/ fountain /univerity drive be elimiated is not to build up at all. Sucks , but that would not happen unless The state were involved probably. The cost of the underground struture, I am guessing would not make it profitable enough for a private developer. But that is a guess.

What's the asking price? Maybe Cambridge residents could buy it.

Isn't Cambridge sort of a ghetto by Downtown Austin standards? Who cares what those residents think?

With all due respect, MB, I think your property value concerns are a little over blown. Property values are based primarily on comps, not adjacent properties. I am surrounded by low-rent student housing on all sides, but it hasn't affected my appraisals at all. If your immediate surroundings don't look very good, it might affect time of sale in a slow market, but will have little to no affect on a desirable location in a hot market. Well maintained, new student housing, should not have any impact at all.

Well I live there and I care. Yes, it is a closer to aforable place to live downtown. Yeah, um , thanks for the ghetto comment. Perhaps you would like to post pictures of where you live and we can all critique it.

And gosh, thanks for the empathetic support on the forum.

I Disagree. Conversations I have had with relators, etc seem to support our concerns. Especially the propertys that directly faced the develplment. They constiute the comps. WHen those units prices go down in our own building... now my comps have gone down.

I think for a building that's nearly 50 years old, Cambridge Tower has held up well, and the exterior is pretty much the same as when it opened in 1965.

At any rate, I found this blog entry about Cambridge Tower to be pretty interesting. All kinds of things I never knew about the building

Cambridge Tower: Austin's Landmark of Luxury

I never knew there were restaurants there at one time, as well as room service for what was originally built as apartments. (Wish my complex had room service.)

I never knew that the building was originally going to be mixed use, and I never knew that the current design was radically different from the original building plans.

I also never knew that it was designed by the same architect who designed the First National Bank Buiulding in Dallas.

There were and stiil are many "storied" residents here. There is also a growing new corp of residents who love the builidng for what it is, The only midcentury style highrise in Austin.

The ground floor is still all buisnesses. There;s have been current effrots to get a coffe shop or other cafe on the ground floor again.

As to the question earlier about Cambridge buying the lot. The building had the opportunity more than ten years ago to do so before prices started rising. Short sightedness at the time on the part of the board seemed to have prevented that. The price is now prohibitive. Any thought of doing so has been compromised by the $ going into the building to upgrade systems all steming from the fire last year.

All in all, it is a very well built building and a healthy reserve. Services are good. Location is great. And, like I have said, relative to downtown it is a more afordable location than most.

I've always liked Cambridge Tower. Austin wouldn't be able to show any maturity in urban highrise living if it weren't for buildings like Cambridge. It's just awesome to think that we had any residential highrises in downtown almost 50 years ago.

I would LOVE to see the views from the roof. Isn't there a rooftop patio or something?

There is. We can include it on a downtown meet up sometime if you would like.

I'd love that. When it cools off a bit we should get another forum meet planned.

I'm game

My sources inform me that the planetarium project's proposal for ground lease has been approved by the State and it is moving forward.

Such Great news!

This things a game changer. If it comes off anywhere near what they've shown then we will have something world class. And that in an underutilized part of central Austin.