AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[427MM]

The maps for CodeNEXT come out today! Some will say the sky is falling, others will say it's not nearly enough--but what do you think? Over the years I have found the good folks on here to be younger and more thoughtful than the average bear--we need more voices in the room and I'm hopeful they will be yours!

There is a CodeNEXT event being held tomorrow (Wed) at City Hall from 6-9pm in case you care to join. No matter whether you've been working on this since 2012 or you found yourself interested only yesterday, this is a great time to get involved. Please remember, if you don't speak up for yourself, someone with viewpoints quite different than yours will do so for you...

#buildmorehomes #promotetransit #walkableaustin

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by 427MM

The maps for CodeNEXT come out today! Some will say the sky is falling, others will say it's not nearly enough--but what do you think? Over the years I have found the good folks on here to be younger and more thoughtful than the average bear--we need more voices in the room and I'm hopeful they will be yours!

There is a CodeNEXT event being held tomorrow (Wed) at City Hall from 6-9pm in case you care to join. No matter whether you've been working on this since 2012 or you found yourself interested only yesterday, this is a great time to get involved. Please remember, if you don't speak up for yourself, someone with viewpoints quite different than yours will do so for you...

#buildmorehomes #promotetransit #walkableaustin

Maps are out.

http://codenext.engagingplans.org/co...comparison-map

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

Maps are out.

http://codenext.engagingplans.org/co...comparison-map

Ridiculous.

The Village (north of Anderson Lane) is transect zoned, but south of Anderson lane (northcross) is traditional zoning?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Ridiculous.

The Village (north of Anderson Lane) is transect zoned, but south of Anderson lane (northcross) is traditional zoning?

Anderson at Burnet - traditional zoning.
Anderson at Lamar/183 - traditional zoning
Burnet at 183 - traditional zoning.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Anderson at Burnet - traditional zoning.
Anderson at Lamar/183 - traditional zoning
Burnet at 183 - traditional zoning.

yes that does look really questionable. perhaps this was in anticipation of a fight from the RG4Northcross crowd? either way they don't really seem to recognize anderson as a true corridor (which it absolutely is).

that whole road should be switched to transect zones from mopac to lamar.

[Urbannizer]

St Austin Catholic Parish Renovation


St. Austin Catholic Parish by Darius Fontenette, on Flickr





http://www.staustin.org/renovation

[lzppjb]

I have no idea what the zoning stuff is. I'd have to research what each one allows to know how it's changing. Too much work.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

Maps are out.

http://codenext.engagingplans.org/co...comparison-map

It looks like much of the area in the west-northwest portions of downtown is proposed to become "Commercial Core" and "Downtown Mixed Use". That makes sense as the CBD fills in with new development and starts to run out of space. This could really expand the urban core and skyline.

[The ATX]

A new site plan for the Spicewood hotel was filed today. This was the 11-story hotel that was previously proposed. But the developer withdrew the site plan after neighbors complained. The new site plan doesn't have any building details yet.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=507704

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

It looks like much of the area in the west-northwest portions of downtown is proposed to become "Commercial Core" and "Downtown Mixed Use". That makes sense as the CBD fills in with new development and starts to run out of space. This could really expand the urban core and skyline.

A not insignificant number of parcels in the additional area zoned as CBD is not developable land though, given historic designations to current buildings.

[The ATX]

West Campus looks to have to same zoning in CodeNext. I would have thought a large part of that area was a good candidate for up zoning.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A not insignificant number of parcels in the additional area zoned as CBD is not developable land though, given historic designations to current buildings.

It would be interesting to see a map showing where those buildings are.

[paul78701]

New Details Emerge on Mixed-Use Project at 711 Trinity, Austin’s Last Empty Block:
http://austin.towers.net/new-details...t-empty-block/

Yesterday, engineering firm KBGE filed a site plan with the city for the construction of a multi-use, 76,230 square foot building at 711 Trinity Street, a space currently occupied by a parking lot. The surrounding site, at the intersection of Seventh and Trinity Streets, is perhaps better known as Block 87 — Austin’s last privately owned, undeveloped block.

[lzppjb]

That's a lot less than that 600,000 sq ft tower rendering they released in '15.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

That's a lot less than that 600,000 sq ft tower rendering they released in '15.

No it isn't:

“The block is made up of several components, intricately pieced together to maximize the usability of the site. These components are: an Archives building, two office buildings, underground parking, ground floor retail and the Residential tower. A Capitol View corridor over most of the site, and surrounding sites, allows only a small corner could extend upwards beyond 5 floors. The project is planned to have 67,000 s.f. archives, 210,000 s.f. office space, 42,000 s.f. retail and 317,000 s.f. of residential.”

Math:

67k + 210k + 42k + 317k = 636k

[Max Tower]

Story originally quoted the LOC on that site filing from yesterday, which is 76,230 sq ft. That appears to be the size of the entire site rather than the building itself.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=201188

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No it isn't:

“The block is made up of several components, intricately pieced together to maximize the usability of the site. These components are: an Archives building, two office buildings, underground parking, ground floor retail and the Residential tower. A Capitol View corridor over most of the site, and surrounding sites, allows only a small corner could extend upwards beyond 5 floors. The project is planned to have 67,000 s.f. archives, 210,000 s.f. office space, 42,000 s.f. retail and 317,000 s.f. of residential.”

Math:

67k + 210k + 42k + 317k = 636k

It's uncool to bring math into the forum, bro. Get out of here with that stuff.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No it isn't:

“The block is made up of several components, intricately pieced together to maximize the usability of the site. These components are: an Archives building, two office buildings, underground parking, ground floor retail and the Residential tower. A Capitol View corridor over most of the site, and surrounding sites, allows only a small corner could extend upwards beyond 5 floors. The project is planned to have 67,000 s.f. archives, 210,000 s.f. office space, 42,000 s.f. retail and 317,000 s.f. of residential.”

Math:

67k + 210k + 42k + 317k = 636k

I know math, thank you very much.

That site is blocked on this computer, so I could only go by what was quoted.

Thanks for quoting the detailed part.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Max Tower

Story originally quoted the LOC on that site filing from yesterday, which is 76,230 sq ft. That appears to be the size of the entire site rather than the building itself.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...ertyrsn=201188

Nice catch.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

It's uncool to bring math into the forum, bro. Get out of here with that stuff.

Uh... Since when is it uncool to bring the facts to the plate?