AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[Onn]

Very innovative design actually! Certainly adds a whole new dimension to the Austin skyline.

[wwmiv]

Cross-posted to relevant threads:

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

[NYC_Longhorn]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Cross-posted to relevant threads:

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

Smart Dude WWMIV

[KevinFromTexas]

^That's awesome. I'll have to bookmark it and refer to it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by kevinfromtexas

^that's awesome. I'll have to bookmark it and refer to it.

I'm in the process of adding the entirety of the most recent emerging projects poster to this map in a different layer. I plan on having different layers subdivided by primary usage and color coded by construction status. Within each of the projects descriptions I have links to the relevant threads here on SSP, if those exist.

[KevinFromTexas]

Whoa, that sounds great. Keep us updated on the progress of it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Whoa, that sounds great. Keep us updated on the progress of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

CVCs:

Medium Grey: City defined
Dark Grey: State defined
Light Grey: State modifications of City defined CVCs


Building Development:

Dark Blue: under construction
Medium Blue: planned
Light Blue: conceptual or district
Light Brown: recently or soon to be finished


Other Development:

Green: parkland developments or public art installations
White: road improvements



I've tried to include as many projects as I can possibly think of. I'd like to give editing access to you, Kevin, as well as Hill Country and BevoLJ, if y'all would like it.

Does anybody see projects I'm missing? I know there are some, but I'm not an encyclopedia.

[wwmiv]

Can I just say how stupid some of our CVCs are?

CVC #29 protects the view from the Memorial practice field. Dumb.
CVC #30 protects the view from the UT swim center building entrance... Dumber.

There are multiple CVCs that protect NB views from Interstate 35. Dumb, if we want to sink the lanes.

There are multiple CVCs that are protected by both the state and city, but which have slightly distinct definitions. The state's definition of the MoPac bridge is much broader than the city's, and I think I prefer it. Same thing for Longhorn Shores. The city's definition of the Redbud Trail view is incoherently off-base and doesn't really protect anything. The state's is better. On the flip side, the state's Barton Creek Pedestrian Bridge definition is unneeded and the city's is much superior.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Can I just say how stupid some of our CVCs are?

CVC #29 protects the view from the Memorial practice field. Dumb.
CVC #30 protects the view from the UT swim center building entrance... Dumber.

There are multiple CVCs that protect NB views from Interstate 35. Dumb, if we want to sink the lanes.

There are multiple CVCs that are protected by both the state and city, but which have slightly distinct definitions. The state's definition of the MoPac bridge is much broader than the city's, and I think I prefer it. Same thing for Longhorn Shores. The city's definition of the Redbud Trail view is incoherently off-base and doesn't really protect anything. The state's is better. On the flip side, the state's Barton Creek Pedestrian Bridge definition is unneeded and the city's is much superior.

I really hope that once all of surface parking lots and underutilized lots are built out that the city and state will revisit some of the CVCs like the ones you pointed out. But despite the amazing amount of tower construction going on, I think we are still a few years away from that. There are still a lot of underutilized parcels of land downtown.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

I really hope that once all of surface parking lots and underutilized lots are built out that the city and state will revisit some of the CVCs like the ones you pointed out. But despite the amazing amount of tower construction going on, I think we are still a few years away from that. There are still a lot of underutilized parcels of land downtown.

Agreed.

[ILUVSAT]

And that "chunk" does not yet include Austin Proper Hotel & Residences, Block 185 (to the south of Austin Proper) or The Independent (whose sites are all in view).

[OU812]

NEW sports arena DEFINITELY has to be here!!
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...re-of-the.html

Whether it's the Frank Erwin Center's replacement or to lure a PRO sports franchise to Austin.

Otherwise, Mueller could be an ideal location assuming there's enough room. The neighborhoods in and around Mueller probably wouldn't like it though.

I've always though the southeast intersection of highways 290 and 183 would be good for a sports arena or stadium as well.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by OU812

NEW sports arena DEFINITELY has to be here!!
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...re-of-the.html

Whether it's the Frank Erwin Center's replacement or to lure a PRO sports franchise to Austin.

Otherwise, Mueller could be an ideal location assuming there's enough room. The neighborhoods in and around Mueller probably wouldn't like it though.

I've always though the southeast intersection of highways 290 and 183 would be good for a sports arena or stadium as well.

I still think the Erwin Center replacement needs to be on campus. A large city arena on the Statesman site would be nice if it DID lure Pro sports and was mixed use with retail, etc. Otherwise, I think a continuation of the South Shore vision would be best for the site. Also, I always thought the land around 71 and 130 would be great for a stadium. There is great infrastructure, an airport , and COTA nearby. And no nimbys to complain about it.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

I still think the Erwin Center replacement needs to be on campus.

Very much agreed.

[NYC_Longhorn]

Frank Erwin replacement built as a big ass attached to a stadium expansion on the south end zone? Seems that all the infrastructure for parking is near the stadium.

Otherwise, I think east austin Holly Street? What do you guys think skyline wise? It would be nice to get something like the Seattle stadium... I hate when cities put their stadiums away from downtown.... Let's Madison Square Garden that shit!

Originally Posted by drummer

Very much agreed.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by OU812

NEW sports arena DEFINITELY has to be here!!
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...re-of-the.html

Whether it's the Frank Erwin Center's replacement or to lure a PRO sports franchise to Austin.

Otherwise, Mueller could be an ideal location assuming there's enough room. The neighborhoods in and around Mueller probably wouldn't like it though.

I've always though the southeast intersection of highways 290 and 183 would be good for a sports arena or stadium as well.

There's not a single indication in that article that the city desires an arena there. In fact, all indications are that the city is taking the right path re: mixed-use housing, office, and hospitality.

[OtherKevin]

Seaholm and GreenWater photo update


(click for larger image)

[Syndic]

Always appreciate the update, Kev.

FYI, a couple of users on the Independent forum are saying they have sources who are telling them that the project has financing in place. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But that's encouraging.

If anyone is keeping score: the West End is kicking the East End's ass. Come on, Waller Park Place and 99 Trinity! You can do it!

[corvairkeith]

Here's a few shots taken from the other side of the lake today. They really show how much the skyline is changing with just those developments.

[IluvATX]

It looks like Seaholm is 2 and a half floors from topping out and Northshore on the 24th floor, which I believe is the last setback.