Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
100% disagree - it means whole and partial blocks sometimes do not get built for decades and some areas of the CBD are all but un-developable because of the CVCs. There are far too many of them and in a city that is already blighted by the State of Texas office park/parking garage ghetto, the CVCs (at least the city ones) are a self inflicted wound.
|
I get what you're saying, but if the developer of the IBC Bank Plaza needed more space (and height), they could have picked a different lot for their building. That development is company specific. It's not speculative office space like say, 3rd & Colorado will be.
Besides, I suspect that in the future as downtown starts to fill in more to a critical point, the CVCs will be re-evaluated. We'll probably see some of them removed. Some of them are already blocked from view because of tree growth. Also if I-35 is ever reconstructed with buried lanes it'll mean some of the views will go away then.
I don't think we've reached a critical point yet. We're still getting shorter projects, buildings with relatively small amounts of space, and we aren't seeing a huge demand for office space to the point that developers are responding by building new office buildings. At least, not like the residential market is doing. The office market right now is still absorbing space. And another thing is we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves here. Until we get some proper public transportation into downtown from outlying areas, downtown will not be the sole office hub in the city. We need to increase commuter capacity into downtown by public transportation and decrease the need for doing it by car. When that happens and developers are able to ease up on building parking garages, we'll see demand for space shoot up, and developers will respond by building.
I agree that some of the CVCs are unnecessary and redundant, but they do actually have an unintended result that can actually encourage density and height.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Syndic
Development now at the expense of all else is not worth it in the end. There has to be direction to the development. I don't want to be Houston.
|
Development (from population growth) is going to happen with or without a focus on density and height, but it won't be the kind of development we want.
I love the Capitol. I grew up running around the Capitol grounds as a kid and walking through the halls of it. I want it to stay relevant on the skyline, but there has to be a reasonable compromise and balance to what views are protected and which are allowed to go away.
Anyway, I really don't see how CVCs contribute to auto-centric development. It's not like there are CVCs outside of downtown or in the suburbs. The kind of development rules Austin should be setting are development standards that promote more of what we'd like to see such as requiring retail in downtown and along major corridors in new developments. There should also be more focus on better civil engineering with pedestrians in mind. And lastly, setting guidelines for better building materials.
Also the CVCs really only affect downtown. Only a couple of them stretch outside of downtown.