Austin | Wilson Tower (410 E. 5th) | 519 Feet | 44 Floors | On Hold
 

A design Intake was filed this morning for a "New high-rise multi-family project at 410 East 5th Street in CBD":

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...ertyrsn=549074


The site has no CVC, but it is across the street from the Brush Square Park fire station. The 5th & Trinity hotel planned for the same intersection and also across the street from the fire station, was limited to 13-stories. I'm hoping this project has more room for a setback that might allow for more height. Here's the site on Streetview:

https://i.imgur.com/9nc8RB7.png

Downtown Parks Overlay only applies to the first 60 feet from the ROW surrounding Brush Square. I can't find the exact height limitation, but I believe it is 60 feet.

That's why the Republic Tower was allowed to go tall. The tower starts about 1/5th of a block back from 4th St. I suspect the podium for this project will follow the park overlay; then the residential units will be in a tall thin rectangle (blue maybe? :)) on the back of the site.

Yes, similar to Gables Republic Square, although that is a full block deep. I'm curious how Plaza Lofts got permitted, because I think the Downtown Parks Overlay was already in place before it was built.

Shouldn't the address be 410 East Fifth Street?

Fixed, thanks

Site plan was updated. This is a 54-story residential tower with 644 DUs and a 20K Sq Ft restaurant.

At 54 floors, this could be another 600 footer. For reference, the Travis is 594 feet and 52 floors.

54-Story Residential Tower Headed for Avenue Lofts Site in Downtown Austin

https://austin.towers.net/54-story-r...wntown-austin/

A 54-story tower project bringing a whopping 644 new multifamily residences and approximately 20,000 square feet of ground-level restaurant space is now planned by local real estate firm Wilson Capital for the 0.8-acre Avenue Lofts condo site located at 410 East Fifth Street in downtown Austin, according to the latest permit activity from the developer — and with the demolition of the existing 38-unit residential building at the property already approved by the city’s Historic Landmark Commission earlier this year, the new tower plan could be moving forward soon.

...

According to the latest permits, the project plans to participate in the Downtown Density Bonus Program to exceed its entitled floor area ratio of 8 to 1, with marketing materials for the site previously indicating a tower with a ratio of 25 to 1 is possible thanks to the site’s lack of other height restrictions. However, the presence of Brush Square next door could impose some design limitations on the building’s frontage due to the impact of the Downtown Parks Overlay — in any case, the building’s density bonus application process will most likely give us our first look at the new tower.

Can we get more supertalls please, all these 500-700 footers are boring as hell now

What is the downtown parks overlay? Is that similar to the capital overlay? If so, that seems like complete overkill.

Said no one 4 years ago.

Well yes, turns out people's standards and expectations change!

Given it is a rare real art deco building in Austin and its history what are the chances this thing will be declared historic????

0

Right now we just have a glut of proposed or just starting construction 500-700 footers. Once we get a bunch of those built? Then I'll raise my expectations for taller. Majority of Austin's skyline is still really short. All those 50-55 story buildings will make Austin feel like a big city and dense. High hopes for the railyard project and 3rd and Congress.

Oh don't worry, the bloated disproportionally-sized parking podiums will continue to push our buildings ever higher.

You hit the nail on the head right there. Austin feels like a bigger city on this forum than what it actually is, because we’re judging it based on its anticipated size with all these new buildings being proposed or just starting construction. Until those are actually built, we’re still a mid-sized (yet wonderful) city with a few decently sized construction pits.

Even if your criteria for determining if a city's size, small, medium, large, super large is based on the amount and size of the buildings downtown, I think Austin is considered a large city by me and many based on our downtown alone. Factor in that Austin is large enough to accommodate huge crowds for ACL, SXSW, F1 for example, and millions of tourists per year, and has a 50k plus neighbor attached directly to the north with UT, and population wise is the 11th largest US city,
I don't think there's anything medium about this city.
But I concede some might think our downtown has some catching up to do given it's 11th biggest status.

In America, because of our balkanized urban planning and public transit infrastructure in the context of a regional personal transport infrastructure, city limits are of limited importance to how “big” a “city” feels. Austin may have the 11th largest municipal population, but because it itself is largely suburban in character (because of when it grew) and the collection of suburban municipalities around it sum to a much smaller population than, say, the 12th largest municipality in the country, San Francisco, it “feels” much smaller. In other words, Downtown San Francisco feels bigger because the Metropolitan Statistical Area is larger because our road and transit infrastructure differ: there are many more people who are able to commute into the city both by road and transit from outside the city limits regularly, and the built environment of San Francisco itself has to accommodate that in a much more confined geography. After all, the San Francisco MSA is double Austin’s, 4.6 million to 2.3 million, and the fully integrated Bay Area CSA including San Jose and others is more than four times that of Austin: 9.7 million. Austin feels like a medium “city” because, when you factor in all these other things that lead to urban core development, it is a medium city.

To me, even San Antonio “feels” like a larger city despite not having as large a skyline, because its traditional urban fabric is more expansive and comprised of larger buildings due it having grown earlier.

I think we were strictly speaking from a skyscraper standpoint. Not population.
Austin's downtown has been growing like a weed. No doubt. Until many of these 600 footers top out, our skyline will still feel really small. You go down Caesar Chavez and it's mostly 300-400 footers. I think once the republic starts to go up, the Travis, Block 16, etc., THEN Austin will start to feel like a bigger city. Although I will say this. The traffic on 35 today around 3 going through downtown was so hellacious I was thinking project connect can't happen soon enough. Oy!

Yes, I was just talking about the skyline itself. Up until about a month ago, the tallest building in Austin was only slightly taller than Trammel Crow in Dallas. Similar to San Antonio, the height and density of Austin’s skyline doesn’t necessarily reflect its larger population. In a few short years that will all likely change. Austin is just now experiencing its first major skyscraper growth, similar to Dallas in the 80s. It’s an exciting time!

After all of that, I still think Austin will “feel” like a medium sized “city.”

Austin’s skyline may be tall and getting taller relative to its peers, but where Austin really falls short is mid-scale density in the neighborhoods around downtown. Only one can really be called densely urban (West Campus), but it is also largely transient. The rest are largely single-family in character and the density boosts are confined to corridors and capped in density between 3-5 floors and effectively even less due to compatibility standards. Austin won’t, to me, truly feel like a large city until some of these larger periphery urban developments take place (the stuff at Lamar and 290, the mega-developments along E. Riverside, and Broadmoor) and are fully connected via corridor development. Oh, and after the east side starts to reach urban escape velocity with taller multi-family buildings. A skyline itself doesn’t make a city feel large while walking the streets and driving around. It just leaves the impression of a large city in a photo from a far off vantage.

I agree with most of your comments. But, one thing to note...SF-Oakland-San Jose lost about 200,000 between the 2020 census (9.7 million) and the 2021 estimate of their CSA.

That is true. But only speaks to a shrinking magnitude of the difference.

Maybe it's because I travel so much for work and fun but for me it feels very much "medium sized" because we don't have a hub airport. All the commonly accepted "large cities" have hub airports and we just have 34 overcrowded gates with 95% origin and destination passengers.

Agree about the airport. I drive Uber fulltime and am used to midway, O'haire, detroit metro airport...Abia is tiny!
Pretty sure they are using eminent domain to take over the south terminal to expand Barbara Jordan. That'll be good.
Some excellent well-thought out points wwmiv. Really enjoyed reading your explanations.
Yeah bobby, it's definitely reminiscent of the Dallas boom. It's Austin's turn to shine now and I'm thrilled about it. Wonder if San Antonio will ever urbanize their downtown. I'm fine if they don't. Love it the way it is. But yes, considering our population, ATX and SA don't have downtowns commensurate to the amount of residents.

Our proposed new land development code nixed in the courts by NIMBYs would have really helped to move the needle with all of this. It does the job of what a 1984 code should do--allows farms and forests to be replaced with low-density, auto-centric sprawl. It does a terrible job at allowing infill/redevelopment. Just the way the NIMBYs like it. Super excited to have a brand new City Council tackle this issue next year. They are inheriting a mess made worse by the day by our oppressive zoning. Losing two members who voted against zoning reform could be good for Austin.

As someone who grew up in San Antonio, I think this statement, while true for most of history, hasn't been true for at least 10 years. The only large city amenities that San Antonio has on Austin is the Spurs and a handful of subpar museums. Spend any amount of time in San Antonio and you will realize it is devoid of professionals--the hallmark of any major city. Austin is far closer to a San Francisco or a New York or a Chicago. It has big tech, big law, big fill in the blank. San Antonio has big military and big food trucks.

Im not here to dunk on San Antonio - but I agree with this.

If nothing else the night-life, bar and restaurant scene in Austin is orders of magnitude above what San Antonio has.

Honestly, I would put Austin's food scene on par with anyone other than NYC/San Fran/L.A./Chicago (I mean, NoLA and Charleston are better but very specific cuisine focused)

I moved back here from NYC thinking I would be miserable for food and other than the really top-shelf 2 and 3 Michelin star spots ahve not missed anything. (I'd also argue that Otoko, Emmer and Rye, Olimae, Hestia and a few others would easily be 1 star if not 2 star spots if Texas had a guide.)

I agree with this. The only city in Texas that has anything like a big city feel for me is Houston, and that's because it has clusters of high-rises in almost every direction. Even then though, when you get off the highway and down to street level Houston doesn't feel like some kind of urban big city environment.

Even Dallas, which has a pretty big skyline, feels pretty small town immediately outside of downtown.

Suburban sprawl cities just never feel that big to me even though they can stretch on forever. It's not just the small scale of the buildings either, it's the visual monotony. Driving across Dallas can feel like you're repeating through the same loop of chain restaurants, car dealerships, and cookie cutter neighborhoods over and over again, and it just kind of becomes a blur. Compare to somewhere like Philly, which is dense even miles from the CBD. There's so much more visual interest and differentiation there.

To me Austin does feel like a big city nowadays. When you drive down Lamar towards DT from the south, it's absolutely jarring (in a good way) seeing just how impressive this city is morphing into, with all the mid rise apartment buildings rising on both sides and DT rising up in the background. It's definitely not looking small by any means. Same when you drive down 6th, very big city look and feel. Its not just the buildings, the amount of foot traffic in areas outside of DT is also very telling in areas that even 10 years ago were devoid of. I feel that while Austin definitely has a lot of suburban sprawl, it still is more compact in terms of the square miles within the city limits compared to any of the other big Texas cities. I live not far from the St. Elmo District, just yesterday I drove through there and its just amazing at how much that area is changing and being built up. Riverside is well on it's way as well and will look very impressive in a couple of more years.

Same here where I grew up in SA too and can go on and on how bad the city is run. My parents still live there but in Leon Valley which is also poorly run, and SA just go another black eye in the national media and perception of the city.

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-a...video-29391656

I just returned from Houston and every time I visit it seems like it keeps getting larger. I used to live there and now the edge of the metro city is the Katy Bucc-ee's, but there are enormous warehouses right before it being built so means more sprawl on the west side. Downtown Houston freeways are a mess where it like having three I-35s with 1950's highway design causing unnecessary traffic and lane confusions. Was staring at the JPMorgan Chase Tower imagining how it will look in height in downtown Austin. But people complaining about Austin being too large should take a trip to Houston and see a city so big it has 4 highway loops around it and at one to end of the metro is over 100 miles.

Yep! Your observations are spot on.

And a zoo! San Antonio has a nice zoo.
And an observation tower. And theme parks.
I hope they build that theme park at COTA. That will be sweet!

I am in Houston almost every other week for work.

All areas. From Freeport to Rosenberg, Katy, Cypress, Conroe, Porter, Baytown, Dickinson, Alvin, and of course the downtown metro. I am amazed at the amount of growth in that metro area in every direction. You can almost get to Angleton, maybe 15 minutes of "country" between Pearland and Angelton at this point, and still see signs of growth everywhere.

The Houston Metro area is ridiculous in size.

I heard a very interesting rumbling and believe this is the project referenced...if true you might get your wish :cheers:

I don't think this can become a supertall with just 54 floors. 6th & Guadalupe is 874 ft with 65 floors, and 98 Red River is 1,022 ft with 73 floors. I know the height of the parking podium adds some variability but even then, you'd need to stretch each floor by a LOT to get this one into supertall (1,000+ ft) category.

If I'm connecting the right dots, this number is being drastically updated.

To be considered a "supertall" the building has to be 300m (~984') or taller. Also, one could easily achieve supertall status with 54 floors. There are examples of this all over the planet.

Interesting, interesting. Would love to see what a supertall with a half-block footprint looks like.

Maybe he got it mixed up with the Railyard Condos site?

...Or 3rd & Congress?

Supertall status is 984.252 feet/300 meters. Streeeeeeetch those floors. :haha:

This bit of info is from loonytoony guys. He doesn't post anything that he does not have an idea of what's going on behind the scenes. He's been spot on over the last few years with regards to DT highrises. Take notice when he posts.

I don't think anyone is doubting loonytoony's validity. At least, I'm not.

Oh...as two points of reference - Bank of America Tower in Atlanta is 55 stories and 1,023' tall and the BOA Tower in NYC is 55 stories and 1,200' tall. However, both are in the ballpark of 950' to the roof.

So, one doesn't really need to "stretch" the floors. Just add some architectural piece to the crown of the building to get extra height.

Very true indeed. (speaking of Indeed, totally random I know but they have their logo in Rainbow colors on their HQ Tower for the Pride Parade, saw it lastnight walking)
But I digress... Was just pointing out he is a reliable source.

Isn't one of the NYC towers currently under construction 54 floors and will be over 300 meters... So yea there are many examples of tall buildings that don't necessarily have a ton of floors.

Those supertall ~55-story buildings are offices. This one is apartments, so the design/uses will need to change to get to that height.

The big question is did I connect the right dots. What was mentioned will dethrone 98RR.