AUSTIN | Loren Hotel & Condos (211 S. Lamar) | 104 FEET | 8 FLOORS | U/C
 

The address is 211 South Lamar Boulevard.

City of Austin permit files:
https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=10814793

-

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...w-grander.html
Rendering from the article:

http://i.imgur.com/mooKwdn.jpg
The building featured in this rendering is proposed for the corner of South Lamar Boulevard and Riverside Drive across the street from the new Zach Theatre. The site now holds a Taco Cabana restaurant. To get the project going, it’ll take a rezoning.

-

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...sitedev/nWXfG/

Renderings from that link:

View from northeast
http://i.imgur.com/yr9I6nC.jpg

View from west
http://i.imgur.com/J3LT5oP.jpg

View from north
http://i.imgur.com/Fk2HwGD.jpg

View from north
http://i.imgur.com/lcd6etx.jpg

View from northwest
http://i.imgur.com/HYmw0xq.jpg

View from southeast
http://i.imgur.com/ncS2Qp5.jpg

View from north along Barton Springs
http://i.imgur.com/uIVxSTH.jpg

The people complaining about this are so laughable.

Seriously, they're upset about a Taco Cabana being torn down? They're worried that Austin is losing it's character because a fast food joint is being taken away?

GTFO.

I don't think it's a matter of the Taco Cabana being replaced. I just think they don't want tall buildings making it across the river.

While it will be the tallest in that immediate area, it's not the tallest south of the river. That I can think of, there are currently at least 12 buildings south of the river that are 96 feet or taller. That includes Streetlights at Barton Springs. Plus there's one more 96 foot building that was approved (the Park Tower office building on Barton Springs). 6 of those are on or near Barton Springs.

Yes. That adds to their dislike of this, yet another tall building.

Park Tower???

The name is actually "The Park" It was originally a 14-story 180 foot office building that would have retail/restaurant and possibly residential thrown in. The address is 801 Barton Springs Road. The neighborhood to the south complained heavily, and it was downsized to about 120 feet. It was ultimately only approved at 96 feet with 8 floors. That height is only to the main roof, though, so it could still be 110 feet or so to the mechanical penthouse. Mechanical penthouses are exempt from height variances. It's "slated" for that empty lot on Barton Springs where all the food trails are.

No renderings yet?

Block light? :rolleyes:

By the way, as shown in the building elevations for Bridges on the Park, it is 77 feet tall to the mechanical penthouse and 63 feet to the main roof. So Bridges on the park itself is taller than the allowed 60 foot height limit. They also claim "blocked light" is the reason for them being against it, which is ridiculous since Bridges on the Park has no windows on the side that faces the Taco Cabana site.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...likely-be.html

Note they are not opposing the development. I think the existing condos have a very reasonable right to expect rules that applied to thier building to be applied to that proterty. I agree. That property was actually originally to be the rest of "Bridges on the Park". So those residents bought knowing that there would be a building there AND because the rules had been so stickly enforced, they have a very reasonable right to believe those rules will be equally enforced in the reasonable future.

That's ridiculous. Rules change, and their particular complaint has nothing to do with "rules", it has to do with "light" and is totally non-sensical.

The compliant will probably fail, just like with Hotel ZaZa.

I can see both sides. They're miffed because they had to play by the rules. Now the new kid on the block gets to skirt the rules and build bigger. But the light/view excuse is terrible. No windows = no view = no light.

The new building will be on the north side of Bridges on the Park. The residential units on the east side of Bridges on the Park will have about as much light as any building with a courtyard does. Comparable to this is AMLI Downtown which has a courtyard with four walls surrounding the pool area. The morning sun would still be just as intense since the sun rises in the east. That view would not be blocked, only the one from the north. And of course the sun sets in the west. So the most intensely sunny times of the day would be left alone.

Also the new building will have a courtyard. From the rendering it's kind of hard to tell, but it looks like the building will be U-shaped with the open side facing Bridges on the Park. That will allow more light in. This isn't going to be just a solid blocky building. The central courtyard will likely have a swimming pool, so it will be in the best interest of the developer of this building to allow as much sunlight in as possible in the courtyard. Basically this building will have a slightly smaller size footprint than Bridges on the Park, and it'll be shaped differently and slightly taller. It'll be U-shaped instead of s-shaped like Bridges is.

Here's the Google Maps aerial of the site.
http://goo.gl/maps/1V0hC

This is ridiculous. I hope the developer does a sun study to show where the sunlight and shadows will be to support their proposal, because this building is not going to block the sunlight even a little. Looking at the Google Maps images, the sun won't be blocked. If anything at certain times of the year and day, this new building may actually reflect more sunlight back at Bridges on the Park.

Also the view from the east will never go away since the land is a park. There's always going to be sunlight from that side of the property. And it's pretty useless because of the train tracks and poor access issues. And the west view is safe, too, even though the Zach Scott Theatre was built there. The thing is, Lamar is 120 feet wide. It's the same width as Congress Avenue. The south wall of this new building will be about 185 feet north of the north wall of Bridges on the Park. I measured the distance with Google Earth.

The only thing they should be complaining about is that giant wall across Lamar known as the Zach Scott Theatre monstrosity. But that's already built, oh well.

Exactly.

It's been close to 10 years now, but I was once on the Bouldin Creek NA steering committee, and many of the same people are still involved in the 04 NAs (or are now City Council members) and their opposition to 'tall buildings' reaches a bizarrely fanatical, almost religious level. Somehow if a building is 60 feet and one inch it's the same as 1000 babies starving to death. I'm being sarcastic, but I'm kinda serious. Some of these people would get so emotional and choked up talking about the waterfront overlay it was weird, and you didn't really know how to engage with them.

You aren't exaggerating - the Town Lake people have almost have a religious zeal about protecting the waterfront from the blight of tall. Likely dates back to the Hyatt - a particularly ugly development.

The problem is - there is a way to do tall next to the water that is gorgeous and draws people in to the waterfront - and frames it beautifully and provides a dramatic contrast between urban and park - like the buildings around Central Park or the waterfront of Vancouver.

In any case, the problem with the sun light argument stuff is not whether one building might impact the sunlight another receives - but that if we start giving sunlight and air easements to every existing building, we can never build a dense vibrant urban core. If you want sunlight and view protections - you should build in the rural environment or pay a lot of money to buy the land you want to protect.

OK.... can;t take this any more.

The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues. I hate it when folks give forums like this fodder for un-empathetic analysis of real issues for living in an urban setting. (Well, somewhat Urban. Bridges is not downtown, but a near neigborhood that we are hoping will develope in a more urban way.)

Underdstand I fully feel folks have to do thier due diligence about what can be built around them. Then I feel there is a reasonable expectation to rely on that zoning for a reasonable amount of time. Speaking of which , they should be thankful to ZACH for fighting the zoning battle in that area. BTW... the plans for the ZACH building were well in place before bridges was build. If not for Zach fighting that battle years before, Bridges and the apparment accross the street would have had a harder time being built. So there is a double standard at play there. Why should they complain about a building that was planned long before Bridges? Funny how opions change when someone does not like the aesthetic of something.

My bigger concern is what this is doing to Paggi house. I hate seeing that rare setting along the lake go away. The folks at Bridges are probably trying to save the stmosphere around the building. I don't blame them, Paggi house and the view of the lake is one of the best aminities around them. But the argument they are using is absurd.

I will also say, everyone there knew that there was a phase 2 to the building. Dose 2 floors make that much difference? Probaly not. It depends on proximity. I think there is just a misguided group leading the fight. I know when we had a construction battle near our building I wanted to tape many a mouth shut of people who were making stupid arguments and costing us support.

So the question for me is...where is any sense of empathy? .. would you do the same if someone changed what could be built next to your house? If you are a homeowner you bet your ass you would if you though it would change your property value. Folks downtown have the same set of issues and should not be blown off because it is "down town". Do you want an urban setting or not? if so, then resepect that there are real issues that come with that, and it is not just a free for all of development. Does this one fit into this category? I'm not sure, but we really have to not become the same predictable un-empathectic commnity that is the opposite but equally quilty one of the NA's "we" so love to blast.

I will say again, due diligence is needed. I knew exactly what could and could not be built around me when I bought. You wnat to try and change those rules and affect my property value, then you can bet you will not only have a fight on your hands, but I have every right to do so. Vertical communities have the same rights as horizontal ones. Address the real issues of urban development and not just a simple battle cry of "MORE>>>>> TALLER>>!!!!!!

Rant over.

I see your point, and even occasionally side with an NA here and there, but many of them - Zilker, Bouldin, and South River City in particular. have earned my ire. Jeff Jack, the power behind Zilker for years, is one of the most destructive forces in Austin, IMHO. He's basically against any density or VMU anywhere, ever. The hypocrisy and elitism of Bouldin NA is mind-boggling. Not to mention, if they had fought for light rail, we might have it now. The second I disagreed with any bit of Bouldin orthodoxy, I was personally attacked - my character, my motivations, etc., anything but the substance of my argument. So, yeah, I did lose my empathy for them...

yup, Jeff Jack is a total Nut Job. He almost single handed stopped Zach from being built. The thing is, there is good and bad in each. Just as there is good and bad growth and development. It's about finding "reasonable".
Also, I have just found on here that too many times the folks that think they want "dense downtown development" don't live here and don't really face the issues and just blurt our very un-empathtic responses. The same issues apply everywhere .... vertical or horizontal !!! LOL!

So exactly what is wrong with the development then? If it's an argument about light then they don't have one. I pretty much proved that the new building won't block the light, and might even reflect more of it back, which would be a whole other issue of glare.

Anyway, I'm sure these downtown/urban residences still get way more sunlight than most of the apartment complexes around town do. Most of the old apartment complexes in Austin have only a couple of windows. I remember the first apartment my brother moved into only had two windows.

I just wish people didn't go at it like a rabid dog. They should study the developments more closely and actually think about exactly how a new development will affect an area. Look into the sunlight angle and shadow studies the developer is doing, request that information. And in this day and age it's easy to do a little homework of your own with programs like Google Maps and Google Earth. You can measure building heights, topography elevations, sunlight angles and areas of shadow and also sight lines. Let's say you're wanting a unit in a complex that faces the hills. It's easy to draw a line connecting those two points. You could then go along that line to see if anything would block the view. There's even a feature that allows you to see the view from near the ground level so that you could see if anything will block the view. I've used the feature many times when I was scouting out a place to take skyline photos. I've used it many times when I had found a photo of a view I liked and wanted to go see the view myself and photograph it, but I wasn't sure where it was taken. I used it just recently to take some photos of the skyline from a place that I'd been wanting to see for a longtime.

I'll just say that cities aren't museums (or at least shouldn't be until they've reached their zenith). Zoning can't be so static that it prevents a city from evolving to the point it can be great. If there is no mechanism for adjusting zoning over the years then it becomes a parcel by parcel ad hoc procedure and leads to battle after battle after battle.

When Austin is Rome or Paris, I'll through my hat in with the lot who say want to preserve it. Until then - that project looks like a substantial upgrade over the drive in Taco Cabana w/ surface parking lot steps from the shores of Town Lake, the pedestrian bridge and the hike and bike.

I actually really could go for a couple of tacos right about now. I just wish these businesses could be included with the new developments that are replacing them.

KVUE had an interview with a resident last night on the show. The resident complained that the light blocked would be from the north facing windows of the hallway corridor and that it would be dark in the hallway. She also stated that the east facing residents that have some north views would loose a percentage of their view north that they paid more for (likely from balconies).

http://www.kvue.com/video?id=197241301&sec=551077

http://www.kvue.com/home/Battle-ove-197241301.html

It seems clear to me that a nice condo development on the Taco Cabana corner is going to be good for property values in the adjacent condo building because the increased density will lead to more amenities and a nicer pedestrian atmosphere in the area. A darkened hallway near the elevators is a small price to pay for the overall improvement that will take place just outside the building.

"Darkened hallway" Does Bridges on the Park not have electricity? That hallway didn't even have to have windows. A lot of hotels don't. Most of the time those windows are only placed near elevator banks to give you something to at (out) while you're waiting for the elevator to come up.

As for the light being blocked from the east residences, it'll be no worse than the light being blocked on the north residences wall on the right side of the building since the building itself creates some shade and shadow by blocking the sun.

Like I said, if anything the south wall of the new building will probably reflect a lot of sunlight back at Bridges on the Park and will actually make some of those units brighter inside. And anyway, those units in Bridges on the Park on the east side of the building in that little notch where the building turns are really dark.

I hope the developer does some models to put forth their plan to show the residences how little it'll block the views/light.

No empathy from me whatsoever. I wish my next door neighbor would give a shit about her yard - it detracts from my property. But it's her yard. Oh well.

well, so much for community.

I take it from your response that your idea of community is everybody acquiescing to the loudest neighbors.

Re-tarded

Can you expand on that there post #1 of yours?

sure thing HIll Country!. I watched the news link and the chick complaining about the light obstruction in the hallway, the one who actually showed her face on the news to complain about it, when she said herself that anyone that buys downtown is risking having their view built over, yeah that girl... she is upset and perhaps I can understand why slightly (nah maybe not), well anywa,y she is, or at least her arguement is, RE-TARDED.

(and for the record I've been an avid reader for years of the Skyscraper forum, and I'm in Costa Rica because we're renting out our house for sxsw, and have no TV in our cabina by the beach, so the forum has been a major source of fending off the home sickness and keeping up with all the developments and goings-on) I decided I had to finally had to join because waiting around for one of y'all to post was making myself feel RE-TARDED.. and apologies if that is not a PC word these days...

...to yourself and all the people who have always posted pics and made me laugh, think, and conversate :worship:

OK. "Retarded" isn't hyphenated by the way. :)

One thing I noticed is that I was assuming that the Paggi House was staying and so was its parking. These renders that are horrible by the way because the don't really show the Bridges project correctly. If this project only took over the Taco Cabana things would be ok but with taking the entire space I could see those that are at the north end a little upset even thought they knew it was possible.

Here's and example of why I simply can't take the ANC types seriously. One of the things they are complaining about is that the developer is apparently claiming the balconies as "open space". Now that does seem like BS on the face of it. But then why does every parcel need to have an open space requirement? That doesn't really make any sense. Good open green space is a larger space available to people from multiple residences. In some cases maybe a pocket park, or in this case freakin' Town Lake park. The open space requirement for a specific small parcel really only makes sense if your goal is to block any and all density and yet sound "green" while doing it. Which is exactly what these people are up to.

For me it's like in politics. If someone says, well, I generally believe in small government, and here's how that translates into policy, I can have a rational respectful conversation with them even though I'm much more at the social democrat end of the spectrum. But if they've just spent 20 minutes ranting and raving about how Obama is a Kenyan Muslim communist who wants to destroy America and thrown some racially inflammatory remarks in there to boot, I'm not even going to try. And that's basically how I feel about the neighborhood groups in Austin at this point. They have to show me that they've become rational, good faith actors again before I bother with them.

As a political scientist, just a note for those who don't know what this means:

A social democrat is a culturally conservative version of moderate socialism that is prevalent in western and northern European countries. Adherent parties typically advocate for straight redistributionism, combined with religious and traditional cultural values. Preference for redistributionist policies is usually couched in these same religious iconography and language.

Social democrats are significantly to the left of Democrats (who are liberals, not socialists) on economic policy, yet usually to the right of Democrats on social policy.

I bring this up only because I don't think you meant this at all, given the context of your previous comments and this comment itself. I.E. you probably aren't a social democrat at all. Feel free to message me privately to discuss your views further and locate a more appropriate classifier.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of *Christian Democrat*? I simply don't agree that social conservatism is a necessary part of being a social democrat. I'd define social democrat as someone who philosophically comes from the socialist tradition but in practice accepts a regulated marked economy with a generous welfare state.

But, for purposes of this discussion I should have just said liberal or progressive. :) (And for that matter my point probably could have been made with an example from the other end of the spectrum anyway...)

Christian democrats are a subset of social democrats, which emphasize the cultural and religious more than other social democratic ideologies.

Sorry, I just think that's flat out incorrect. Take Germany for example. The main center-left party? The Social Democrats. The main center-right party? Christian Democrats.

Having said that, party labels <> ideology labels in many cases, and people using the same label don't always agree on its definition, so we'll never prove each other wrong or right.

So I'm retiring from this interesting (to me) but terribly OT sidebar at this point. :cheers:

No, in this case the party labels are basically correct. The grand irony about German politics is that the two main parties are really not very far apart on any major policy issues. The main difference? The degree to which they support the private market. Social democrats prefer a larger state role, while Christian democrats - though generally similar - support a freer private market.

Wow, those last few posts had Talking Heads' song "Once in a Lifetime."

Paggi House is staying according to the Emerging Projects info.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/DowntownAu...s_jan_2013.pdf

No Sir ( or madam) that is not a logical or accuate conclusion from anything I have said. I quite clearly stated what my feelings are about the argument being "reported" from Bridges:
" The Sunlight Argument is silly and distorts other issues."

My idea of community in my city and forum is a place where there are ratioanl discussions and empathic responses to situations that may well affect any of us at some point in time. Be that Horizontal or vertical communities.

Change is inevitalbe. People should do their due dilignece before moving into a neighborhood. Reasonable timelines for change are hard to predict. Homeowners ( vertical and horizontal) need to look forward with "reasonable" expectations for growth patterns before investing. For me, reasonable timelines and change is what seems to be in play here. We all should know ( at least on here) that zoning and laws will evolve. I do feel that for the sake of investment, some "reasonable" stability and predictabily is necessary. Rapid growth seems to fuel the sense of what is reasonable. But, yes, let the buyer beware.

On the other hand: I have every right to work to affect development in the neigborhood I invested in ( mine being vertical and downtown)... and I have. I have fought for bars and restaurants that other neighbors thought would not be healhty. I have fought against ill planned and invasive student housing that would be transitory and value threathing. I have fought for high rises that would push boundaries of height but would bring welcome activity and value driven neighbors. My right in all cases.

I think more people need to ask themselves how they would feel if an unexpected development, ( for what ever the reason) was to be built 8 feet from your bedroom window.
Would you not at least work to have something to say about it.???? (... you should then pray, in my case and possibly the Bridges, the person quoted in the paper is not the silly old lady who has nothing to do but make up feeble quotes! LOL!)


( I am talking down the American flag and turning off the fife playing in the background now)

But there isn't anything being built 8 feet from someone's window in this case. There are no windows other than a hallway window which affects noone tremendously AND their specific complaint (light) holds absolutely no water whatsoever. They are grandstanding.

WOW...

Clearly I stated I do not think this particlar claim by whomever represented Bridges is valid. Clearly. So I am not sure who you are arguing with? :shrug:

I was attemting to evoke concersations that might get us away from "arguing" to a sense of how folks would respond to a parallel situation that we too often brush aside as not affecting precedent that may affect any one of us.

I guess that attempt was not clear enough.
My appologies.

1. What's with the distinction between vertical or horizontal housing? Do you think there's some inherent bias against people who live in vertical housing? Here? On this board? Skyscraper page - right? I mean - really where is this coming from?

2. Your right to a rational discussion (I think you get that here) doesn't give you a right to agreement. It doesn't even get you a right to empathy if unwarranted.

3. The developer wants to replace a Taco Cabana - a Taco freaking Cabana - on town lake - with VMU. Sorry for those people who thought they got to keep those views forever - but - the rest of us we benefit.

4. Far too often too much weight is given to neighbors (who always oppose something next door) and not enough weight to the wider community.

5. NIMBYism began in an era where new development almost always meant new crappy development and the trade-off wasn't a fair deal. But it has a life of its own now and that's unfortunate, because the urban development today isn't what it was in the 1980s. And this PUD is exactly the kind of thing the city should be doing everywhere. And even here - Jeff Jack wants to deny the process. He doesn't just think that the developers shouldn't be granted the variance - Jeff Jack thinks they shouldn't even have the right to ask for the variance in the first place. He opposes PUDs for lots like this when the whole purpose is to get development exactly like this.

6. As for all of us having to ask how would we feel if a particular development went in - you know what - too bad. That is not my job. All I have to do is look at it from MY perspective. And from MY perspective, we're trading a Taco Cabana for exactly the kind of thing I want in this city - dense VMU. And if they don't like it - that's fine. But I'm not going to agree with them.

This is an attractive development. It is exactly where we need to be developing. It is exactly what we need to be doing more of. It is unfortunate that when a developer wants to do the right thing they are punished and when they want to do the wrong thing (low density, set backs, lots of parking) they are rewarded with easy permits.

You want empathy for that position?

I don't think you understood what Michael is trying to say which is a much broader statement than a simple commentary on this particular development. Not all development is good development, even when it involves redeveloping an underutilized property. For example, not all uses are compatible with neighboring development and I agree with Michael that we need to exercise our right to protest a change when that happens.

In this case I think we can all agree that this proposal, if built, will be a very good thing for that corner and the argument against it is weak at best. Density in and near downtown is good, it's unlikely that this development will negatively impact its neighbors, and the use is very appropriate and compatible with nearby development.

Not only is not all development good development - I would say the vast majority is crap - drive 5 minutes out of the city core and then keep driving for the next 30-45 minutes in virtually any direction and you will know exactly what I mean. That's why stuff like this needs to be encouraged, celebrated and supported. The NIMBYs have an enormous voice in this city - disproportionate against all reason. Planners and council and decision makers of all kind need to constantly hear the other side - that the whiney speakers at city council and the obnoxious letters from CAVE people in the Statesman don't comprise the entire community.

And MichaelB is asking for more than a right to protest, he seems to be asking for us to be empathetic when none is earned. Neither I nor any poster have questioned his right to voice an opinion, here or elsewhere. And god only knows the NIMBYs in this town have amazing power to control and derail in very good development - as they quite often do.

Far too often we listen with the utmost concern to neighbors who think the world will come crashing in if some variance is granted. And it just is so rarely the case.

I don't stand up for bad development - never have, never will. If MichaelB is making a different point that what I believe he is, he picked a strange thread to do it in.

This project is good - it replaces bad - it should go forward - we need this to happen over and over and over if we are going to develop into the city that it has the potential to be.