AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[ahealy]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...her-delay.html

We should all email City council in support of this project. I can't really believe there's opposition.....

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Google Earth is your friend here, it has a measuring tool that let's you plot a line from point to point.

Thanks "KevinFromTexas", this tool on Google Earth is very usefull.

And WELCOME that OtherKevin...Keep on a postin!

[KevinFromTexas]

I use that tool for some of my photos when I've taken a distant photo of the skyline and see something sticking up that I'm curious about. If you plot the line from the spot where you took the photo to another point behind the object you're curious about to whatever building you know on the skyline, then you can follow that line and figure out where it's located.

There have been times before when I saw a roof of a building that I didn't recognize and used that tool to find it that way.

It's also great for finding good vantage points for taking photos of the skyline. If there's a certain angle you're wanting of the skyline so that it shows a specific building, you can use this tool to find a parking garage or hill where you could do that. I've also used it many times to figure out where someone had taken a photo of the skyline when I wanted to see that view myself.

And oh, yes, welcome, OtherKevin.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by N90

Austin Planetarium tower is now cancelled right? That's a shame, that tower literally looked similar to a Dell desktop computer and would've been a perfect fit in Austin's skyline.

Unfortunately the T. Stacy tower on Congress is also dead.

However, how about this? http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/l...oup_050213.jpg

I think it should be added to the proposed list.

The Planetarium Tower is now floating aimlessly through interstellar space (at least in its current form and site). However, the group and developer behind it are still weighing their options.

T.Stacy’s project was “dead” from the day it was conceived. Tom never had any intention of developing the project by himself. He wanted to obtain the highest available zoning and sell it off to the highest bidder. This process is prevalent with local developers who have no experience in developing these types of projects. That is exactly why I fear the Sutton Co.’s “plans” for Waller Center. I’d LOVE to see that come to fruition; however, Sutton has no history in developing this type of project and is probably in the same boat as Tom…maximizing the value of a particular piece of property.

Larry Nelson tried to do basically the same thing with another Rainey Street property four years ago…Contract the land under a feasibility study and see if he could get the city to agree with a higher FAR zoning for the site. From day one, it was Nelson’s intention to buy the land only if he could flip it with denser zoning.

In all honesty, it’s a good business plan. However, it tugs at the heartstrings of those who actually want to see these “proposals” completed.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The Planetarium Tower is now floating aimlessly through interstellar space (at least in its current form and site). However, the group and developer behind it are still weighing their options.

T.Stacy’s project was “dead” from the day it was conceived. Tom never had any intention of developing the project by himself. He wanted to obtain the highest available zoning and sell it off to the highest bidder. This process is prevalent with local developers who have no experience in developing these types of projects. That is exactly why I fear the Sutton Co.’s “plans” for Waller Center. I’d LOVE to see that come to fruition; however, Sutton has no history in developing this type of project and is probably in the same boat as Tom…maximizing the value of a particular piece of property.

Larry Nelson tried to do basically the same thing with another Rainey Street property four years ago…Contract the land under a feasibility study and see if he could get the city to agree with a higher FAR zoning for the site. From day one, it was Nelson’s intention to buy the land only if he could flip it with denser zoning.

In all honesty, it’s a good business plan. However, it tugs at the heartstrings of those who actually want to see these “proposals” completed.

I agree with you on Sutton. They just pulled a bait and switch with the property that they proposed to build twin 50-story towers on and sold it to another developer who is planning on an 8-story building. This 65-story tower proposal is no different.

[KevinFromTexas]

Fox7 tonight had a segment about the Waller Creek Flood project. It was talking more about the park designs and had some video/photos of the design model.

[JoninATX]

Update rendering of 7 Rio



http://aecollab.com/v/project-detail/On-the-Boards/46/

[East7thStreet]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Update rendering of 7 Rio



http://aecollab.com/v/project-detail/On-the-Boards/46/

Wow. Nice slender building with a lot of light and glass. Completely different from earlier renderings.

[migol24]

Yeah even though its much shorter, I like this design better.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

Update rendering of 7 Rio



http://aecollab.com/v/project-detail/On-the-Boards/46/

Oh wow, very very nice.

[wwmiv]

I won't lie, I loved both designs for completely different reasons. I'm glad the project is moving forward period, but I can't decide which is better. I wish they could both be built!

[priller]

A few of the Marriott yesterday:







The last 2 photos were taken from the 8th floor of the parking garage, so gives you some idea how tall it is already.

[JoninATX]

Great update Priller, the Marriott is coming along nicely. You can also see it rising in the Skyhouse cam.

http://oxblue.com/open/SkyHouseApartments

[audiomuse]

South Shore District update (June 9)

View from S. Lakeshore Blvd.



View from Riverside Dr.

[oberthewhat]

I have been watching the redevelopment on riverside drive for a long time now. I was excited when the South Shore District project was announced. I am happy about the project except for one thing. The property along Riverside Drive will be very car oriented and pretty much just like most the sprawl crap in suburbs. I wish they would have built out to the road and had the property be more pedestrian friendly. Things like freestanding walgreens really irritates me if we are trying to become more public transit oriented.

[wwmiv]

That's a change from the original plan, which was supposed to be just as you wanted. Maybe the parking lots are temporary and will be filled with VMU later on? Doubtful...

[zedaref]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's a change from the original plan, which was supposed to be just as you wanted. Maybe the parking lots are temporary and will be filled with VMU later on? Doubtful...

This Chronicle article from '09 has it labeled as "Future TOD", so there's hope.

At least this attempts to hide the parking lots somewhat from Riverside instead of just being a strip mall. I'm far more disappointed with the giant parking lots of the Lakeshore development a little east of South Shore.

[wwmiv]

The Lakeshore development parking lots are future developments, just fyi.

[zedaref]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The Lakeshore development parking lots are future developments, just fyi.

Fantastic!

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

T.Stacy’s project was “dead” from the day it was conceived. Tom never had any intention of developing the project by himself. He wanted to obtain the highest available zoning and sell it off to the highest bidder. This process is prevalent with local developers who have no experience in developing these types of projects.

As much as I hate the free-wheeling, hapahazard aspect of Houston's lack of zoning, there are no incentives for developers to pull these kinds of shenanigans. If they announce they intend to build something 50 stories tall, they'll build it; they're not trying to see if they can get a variance for a tall building so they can flip the property.