AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local...71315350-story

frustrating

" But the top floor has eliminated because its proposed height violated a city ordinance regarding unrestricted views of the state capitol. "

And wasn't it a state-designated corridor? Otherwise the council could have fixed the issue themselves by fiat.

[GoldenBoot]

Just another example of poor and lazy "reporting" by a so-called "journalist."

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by Novacek

"When the project was originally pitched there was an idea that Waller Creek would be transformed into a Riverwalk similar to what San Antonio and Oklahoma City have. That idea has literally gone down the drain."

Uh, that's completely false. It was never claimed to be that.

It was always presented as a series of parks along the creek



https://www.wallercreek.org/vision/

https://www.austintexas.gov/department/waller-creek-1

Exactly!

[the Genral]

When the story mentioned the creek will still have an "urban feel" between 7th and 1st St. does that mean there will still be homeless camps and the stench of urine along that stretch?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by the Genral

When the story mentioned the creek will still have an "urban feel" between 7th and 1st St. does that mean there will still be homeless camps and the stench of urine along that stretch?

...and some vomit on the weekends.

[Jdawgboy]

Yea that story is misleading in that the creek was never envisioned as a full urban style river walk. The stretch between Cesar Chavez and 7th was the one area where they were planning an urban feel mostly because that stretch is half way there now. The majority of the creek was always going to be parkland. Its almost like they wanted to create some uneeded drama. Rather than making the intake debacle the main story which would make sense, it goes on to give people the impression that the creek was going to be something completely different than what it was actually planned to begin with. Just ridiculous.

[The ATX]

Here's a boring permit filing from today for a building proposal at 21st & Nueces. That intersection has two small, older apartment buildings and a surface lot that are likely sites for a new building. The wording in the filing makes me think it's the current site of one of the two small apartment buildings. West Campus is getting seriously dense.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11470606

[Austinite101]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's a boring permit filing from today for a building proposal at 21st & Nueces. That intersection has two small, older apartment buildings and a surface lot that are likely sites for a new building. The wording in the filing makes me think it's the current site of one of the two small apartment buildings. West Campus is getting seriously dense.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11470606

This is on top of the proposed 17-story apartment building south of 21Rio and north of Pointe on Rio.

[tie_guy]

Stumbled across this online. Given the location (looks like Republic Park), it doubt this is even a real project, but I am loving the design for this building here. Would love for Austin to have something snazzy like this. Check it

http://hsuoffice.com/project/living-tower/

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Stumbled across this online. Given the location (looks like Republic Park), it doubt this is even a real project, but I am loving the design for this building here. Would love for Austin to have something snazzy like this. Check it

http://hsuoffice.com/project/living-tower/

This has been discussed in another thread recently, but I don't recall the thread or the proposed location. Given that it's a conceptual piece, it seems to me more like it's being presented on the linked page as general proposal that would be adapted to a parcel downtown, but it doesn't seem to be tied to a specific lot at the moment. I'm sure others will have more intelligent things to say about this, though...

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Stumbled across this online. Given the location (looks like Republic Park), it doubt this is even a real project, but I am loving the design for this building here. Would love for Austin to have something snazzy like this. Check it

http://hsuoffice.com/project/living-tower/

A post on another thread said it was a proposal for 6th and Nueces.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by tie_guy

Stumbled across this online. Given the location (looks like Republic Park), it doubt this is even a real project, but I am loving the design for this building here. Would love for Austin to have something snazzy like this. Check it

http://hsuoffice.com/project/living-tower/

Originally Posted by MichaelB

A post on another thread said it was a proposal for 6th and Nueces.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217483

[KevinFromTexas]

5-story multi-family site plan for 300 and 315 Pressler Street (Two 58 foot buildings).

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...reet_PLANS.pdf

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...eet_PLANS.pdfv

[Digatisdi]

That's interesting. I mean I'm very happy to see projects along this section of Pressler, and not only because I'm willing to bet that those rail crossings will become quiet zones, if they aren't already.

I'm wondering how this will be constructed with the extension of Pressler Street—if they'll be staggered or constructed concurrently.

[drummer]

I'm always a fan of concurrent construction....just get it all over with. Of course, that doesn't always work out for the various construction companies who are trying to work everything out logistically.

[AusTxDevelopment]

There's an article in MyStatesman.com about the high apartment rents and why all the developers are building luxury apartments.

“Has anybody ever examined why all the new apartments seem to be so high-end?” he wrote? “Surely there would be a market for entry-level apartments — not for people who qualify as low income, but just for people who want and need a basic unit for less money.”

“The cost savings to strip out all the frills is about $7 a square foot on total current construction cost of about $235 a square foot for (traditional) product,” Wendler said. “Then you have a product that isn’t very attractive or marketable with very little savings. Bottom line is the savings just are not worth it — the savings are so small you can’t reduce the rent enough to offset the lack of frills.”

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...artment/np4kz/

[wwmiv]

That's why we have to have city policy involvement in various forms like tax breaks and incentives, requirements, opt ins, opt outs, city code, blah blah blah to remedy some of this. But there's also the fact that, well, the market is there for these developments and that's why they're getting built.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

There's an article in MyStatesman.com about the high apartment rents and why all the developers are building luxury apartments.





http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...artment/np4kz/

"The community gets "chump change""

Or 2.5 Million Dollars for affordable housing. But who's counting.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

There's an article in MyStatesman.com about the high apartment rents and why all the developers are building luxury apartments.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...artment/np4kz/

The other way to make housing more affordable is to allow much smaller apartments, like in the range of 350 square feet or less, remove parking requirements, setbacks, FARs, etc.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

The other way to make housing more affordable is to allow much smaller apartments, like in the range of 350 square feet or less, remove parking requirements, setbacks, FARs, etc.

It wouldn't completely solve the affordability issue but would put a huge dent in it as well as deliver much needed housing in a relatively short amount of time. Something we desperately need now.