AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The city OK'ed the new uses for the Seaholm site and construction should start this summer.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte....html#comments

Check out the comments to the article before the Statesman cuts them off. The anti-everything NIMBY trolls are out in full force busy typing their comments.

did you read the comment about how austin is going to turn like phoenix az? haha so silly.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by migol24

did ytou read the comment about how austin is going to turn like phoenix az? haha so silly.

Wow really? If anybody seriously thinks Austin is going to be like Pheonix, then they need their eyes and brain checked out.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by migol24

did you read the comment about how austin is going to turn like phoenix az? haha so silly.

I'm sorry to do this to our Phoenix skyscraper brethren, but Phoenix wishes they could have a vibrant downtown like we do. And if that person was talking about the housing crisis in Phoenix, fine, but the cause of Phoenix's housing crisis was suburban development which is most definitely not what is happening in downtown Austin.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The city OK'ed the new uses for the Seaholm site and construction should start this summer.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte....html#comments

Check out the comments to the article before the Statesman cuts them off. The anti-everything NIMBY trolls are out in full force busy typing their comments.

The opposition to the deal cut by the City Council has NOTHING to do with NIMBYism. I fully support the Seaholm redevelopment and the construction of the new tower. However, the fact that the power plant is being turned over to a private company with the bare minimum of public use is extremely disappointing. The interior of Seaholm is spectacular - a one-of-a-kind asset. Now, all the public will get to do is peek at it while eating lunch. This is very disappointing.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by gardensoul

The opposition to the deal cut by the City Council has NOTHING to do with NIMBYism. I fully support the Seaholm redevelopment and the construction of the new tower. However, the fact that the power plant is being turned over to a private company with the bare minimum of public use is extremely disappointing. The interior of Seaholm is spectacular - a one-of-a-kind asset. Now, all the public will get to do is peek at it while eating lunch. This is very disappointing.

Agree 100 percent. I always thought it could be an incredible location for a farmers market open every day...something like Pike's Market in Austin.

On a separate note: I'm sorry but I am going to have to rant here...Can we please on this forum stop throwing around this word "NIMBY?" I feel most of the time you guys don't even realize what this word means...

Here is something to blow your mind...every time you guys cry out against a suburban development project, you are exercising your right to be a NIMBY. "How dare you" you say? Think about it...you are commenting on a project that is away from you because you have a vested interest in the community and city you live in. We all care about Austin and we want to be developed in a way that fits our view of the ideal city. This is what NIMBY is...its my backyard so I have a say in what goes in it. Sometimes there are people that don't share our opinion. That's life and it happens. Everyone of us has been a NIMBY at one point in your life unless you are for every single project that ever has been, which is certainly not the case because we all come on here and are interested in projects and how they develop. Guess what guys...when everyone hated the old Marriot design...we were being NIMBYs! Not like the design of the Hyatt or the new apartment on Brazos...same thing. This entire forum is a giant YIMBY and NIMBY outlet, and yet we hurl that phrase so divisively. Can we just please try and stop labeling people with such derogatory terms the eliminate any possibility of debate. And if we are going to use negative terms, at least use the right ones that don't insult your own actions. Thank you. Rant over.

[BevoLJ]

I would like to add that to the list, but honestly not sure what to add.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I would like to add that to the list, but honestly not sure what to add.

I believe the building on the right was (or is) the planned 17-story Andaz Hotel (of the Hyatt brand name). Although, I only count 15 floors in that rendering. I don't know if plans have changed, but it was going to be a hotel. The building on the left is already there. It's the University Park office building that backs up to I-35. I got the height for that building after it was completed. It's 128 feet tall. I would guess the hotel tower is now around 170 feet tall or so.

This page shows the original rendering for it.
http://www.pspaec.com/index.php/hous...st-avenue.html

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

They have started to turn dirt up at the Midtown Commons again in the Single Family area that was on the original site plan for that development. This is at Lamar Blvd and just north of Airport Blvd.

FYI
There are 3 visual cranes up in the West Campus area, two are the 15 & 17 or so tall towers of apartments/dorm style living. The third one I have not looked up to see what it is. Also on of the short stack 4-5 story buildings is almost complete around 23-25th streets just west of Guad.

Thirdly, The Gatti's Pizza on MLK and San Antonio is closed, and the lady at Wendy's across the street told me today it will close on Friday. Does anyone know of development for these lots or did they just close due to lack of sales as the lady at Wendy's told me?

Thanks for the help. I was trying to track down what buildings were being built. There were two confirmed highrises (the ones you mentioned) under construction, plus two more that are a little more mysterious. I sent an email to one company who had renderings showing a 15-story tower on their website. They emailed me back yesterday and said they had no such building under construction in Austin.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I believe the building on the right was (or is) the planned 17-story Andaz Hotel (of the Hyatt brand name). Although, I only count 15 floors in that rendering. I don't know if plans have changed, but it was going to be a hotel. The building on the left is already there. It's the University Park office building that backs up to I-35. I got the height for that building after it was completed. It's 128 feet tall. I would guess the hotel tower is now around 170 feet tall or so.

This page shows the original rendering for it.
http://www.pspaec.com/index.php/hous...st-avenue.html

I wrote this, this morning to add to the list. It is approved, and I found the height on emporis. But I didn't add it because I am not sure if it is still alive. Do you think I should add it? Or what changes I should make to it before adding it? I've very unfamiliar with the UC plans.

1. East Avenue Andaz Hotel 182 17 ------- UT -----
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Edit: obvously I would need to fix the spacing and look and all that before adding it. lol. But for info would I need to change anything you think? I was going to add it to the "Approved Buildings" part of the list.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Thanks for the help. I was trying to track down what buildings were being built. There were two confirmed highrises (the ones you mentioned) under construction, plus two more that are a little more mysterious. I sent an email to one company who had renderings showing a 15-story tower on their website. They emailed me back yesterday and said they had no such building under construction in Austin.

Could what y'all are talking about be the Quarters at Bandera House?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Could what y'all are talking about be the Quarters at Bandera House?

Here's everything that Simmons Vedder has planned. Scroll down to the last page for student housing.

http://www.simmonsvedder.com/images/...iew_71009b.pdf

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Thanks for the help. I was trying to track down what buildings were being built. There were two confirmed highrises (the ones you mentioned) under construction, plus two more that are a little more mysterious. I sent an email to one company who had renderings showing a 15-story tower on their website. They emailed me back yesterday and said they had no such building under construction in Austin.

The projects are:
ACC Co-Op 505 W 22nd ST
SP-2011-0117C.SH
Floors 7-15 Dorm
Floors 16-17 Apartment

2400 Nueces St (Smart Housting)
SP-2010-0258C.SH
17 Floors 180' by plan elevation

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh yeah, that 182 foot height for that hotel came from the American-Statesman articles that were talking about it a few years ago. I actually entered that height at Emporis back when I was an editor there.

It looks like they reduced the height and changed the design slightly. I would use the rendering that JoninATX posted above and the 15 floor count for the list. Not sure about the height. I would just leave it blank until a confirmed height is found.

And I don't know about the West Campus building. I'll send them another email with the rendering they had on their page.

[wwmiv]

Not only that, but did you see the company that Austin was in on that page? Dubai? Baku? Jakarta? Amman? These are all major major up and coming cities.

[MichaelB]

I agree we are all NIMBY's is some way. I live downtown in a hight rise and you better believe I'm picky as shit about what is getting built around me. Yes, I am going to protect my property value. ANY home owner would!

[migol24]

well, i agree... no doubt we're nimby's too. the difference is that there are those nimby's that are about "anti" everything... and they live up to the name much better than we urban enthusiasts. and those people are annoying. anyways, i'm sure we all understand that.

[gmsalpha]

I'm not a NIMBY. Not of/for Austin, anyway. I used to live in Austin and vow to return. Thus, I like to see what's going on in the best city I've ever lived in. Obviously I have opinions, and I want the city to continue to thrive and become more dense. I want Austin to be a place that I always am attracted to.

Besides, I don't even think Orlando has a thread on skyscraperpages, so this is where I hang out and participate.

[KevinFromTexas]

Fair enough, Myomi. I don't really have a problem with them when they form a thoughtful opinion based on some knowledge they've gathered on the subject. Too many times, though, that's not the case and they tend to be anti everything with no rational explanation as to why. It's not even about picking your battles, someone should have a good reason with some good points to back up what they say other than an almost childish response. I'm with them on the argument against raising taxes and fears of it, and some things that increase traffic, but reading the Statesman comments makes it clear they haven't really educated themselves on the subject, and they also tend to fall for phony political ads.

As for urban development vs suburban development and the NIMBYism of both, suburban development catches so little flack but does the most harm. It contributes to traffic, air pollution, water pollution, light pollution, the heat island affect, it raises taxes since new services need to be extended to areas where cows once stood. Think new sewer lines, new water lines, new electric lines, new streets, new fire stations, new post offices, new schools, new hospitals, more police, fire and EMS personnel. I'm sure I've missed some, but those are just the obvious ones. As opposed to urban developments right in town which do need some added services, but most of them are already there.

Now if someone who was against urban development could make an argument against it with some points like I mentioned above, fine, but they usually don't.

By the way, I've always thought of the waterfront and Auditorium Shores, etc as Austin's front yard.

Anyway, Austin during the 90s got nothing. City council was run by a bunch of no growthers, and as a result, we got nothing. The city did grow, the population did, but there was also a lot of sprawl. What was lacking was any kind of contributions to downtown. Austin has nothing to offer to families in the way of large attractions. I would LOVE to see an aquarium built and or a planetarium. We've also had nice improvements made to our parks and even added some new ones. None of that stuff happened in the 90s. The city was really pretty stagnant. Crime was higher during the 90s than it is now. We had more than twice as many murders in 1991 than we did in 2006.

All the highrise development in downtown is going to generate more taxes for the county and city, money that can be used to help fund nice things for Austin, things people and families will enjoy. I hope that we see some new museums, an aquarium and planetarium. If we don't, I worry that it'll take away some of the legitimacy of all those new buildings being built and might be food for the NIMBYs or no-growthers or whatever people like to call them. But if new attractions get built that people will enjoy, it'll take some air out of their arguments against everything that was built.

[The ATX]

!!!!!

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Fair enough, Myomi. I don't really have a problem with them when they form a thoughtful opinion based on some knowledge they've gathered on the subject. Too many times, though, that's not the case and they tend to be anti everything with no rational explanation as to why. It's not even about picking your battles, someone should have a good reason with some good points to back up what they say other than an almost childish response. I'm with them on the argument against raising taxes and fears of it, and some things that increase traffic, but reading the Statesman comments makes it clear they haven't really educated themselves on the subject, and they also tend to fall for phony political ads.

As for urban development vs suburban development and the NIMBYism of both, suburban development catches so little flack but does the most harm. It contributes to traffic, air pollution, water pollution, light pollution, the heat island affect, it raises taxes since new services need to be extended to areas where cows once stood. Think new sewer lines, new water lines, new electric lines, new streets, new fire stations, new post offices, new schools, new hospitals, more police, fire and EMS personnel. I'm sure I've missed some, but those are just the obvious ones. As opposed to urban developments right in town which do need some added services, but most of them are already there.

Now if someone who was against urban development could make an argument against it with some points like I mentioned above, fine, but they usually don't.

By the way, I've always thought of the waterfront and Auditorium Shores, etc as Austin's front yard.

Anyway, Austin during the 90s got nothing. City council was run by a bunch of no growthers, and as a result, we got nothing. The city did grow, the population did, but there was also a lot of sprawl. What was lacking was any kind of contributions to downtown. Austin has nothing to offer to families in the way of large attractions. I would LOVE to see an aquarium built and or a planetarium. We've also had nice improvements made to our parks and even added some new ones. None of that stuff happened in the 90s. The city was really pretty stagnant. Crime was higher during the 90s than it is now. We had more than twice as many murders in 1991 than we did in 2006.

All the highrise development in downtown is going to generate more taxes for the county and city, money that can be used to help fund nice things for Austin, things people and families will enjoy. I hope that we see some new museums, an aquarium and planetarium. If we don't, I worry that it'll take away some of the legitimacy of all those new buildings being built and might be food for the NIMBYs or no-growthers or whatever people like to call them. But if new attractions get built that people will enjoy, it'll take some air out of their arguments against everything that was built.

[Syndic]

I'll never stop using the word 'NIMBY'. It's meant to be derogatory and offensive. These people are incorrigible. I don't consider myself a NIMBY because I don't oppose the wrong projects; NIMBYs do. They try to keep things as they are. They try to keep things suburban, small, and THEIRS. Mostly, they just don't want to share. They don't want new residents or new visitors to "their" neighborhood. And, really, it's not even theirs. The more central a location in a city, the more a place is the property of all citizens of the city. These neighborhood groups act like it's THEIR neighborhood only when it's really all of ours. That rubs people the wrong way. They're often people of privilege complaining (something no one wants to hear) and opposing extending privileges to others. It's just greed and selfishness.

I don't consider what we do NIMBYism. A neighborhood group is not a legislative body. They have no legal authority. So, we need to learn to completely ignore their cries when the situation calls for it.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I don't consider what we do NIMBYism. A neighborhood group is not a legislative body. They have no legal authority. So, we need to learn to completely ignore their cries when the situation calls for it.

The problem with a neighborhood group is that they DO have de facto authority given to them by the the city during the Neighborhood Planning process and as a voice for "the people" during development hearings. A few NIMBY members in high position in a Neighborhood Association have tremendous power.

Unfortunately folk like myself (I live in Allendale) are not vocal and involved to any great degree with our local association...and thus allow the NIMBY voice to have a much louder and deciding voice. This needs to change if all of central Austin is to grow-up in a fair and equitable long term fashion.

I agree that the entire Lady Bird Lake area...from dam to dam is the front yard of Austin and every Austinite needs to be involved and have a voice. The Seaholm lease to private offices is to last 20 years. Hopefully by then the region will have matured to the point that several important cultural/attractions will want the building for true great public benefit. Austin apparently is not there yet.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by austex

The problem with a neighborhood group is that they DO have de facto authority given to them by the the city during the Neighborhood Planning process and as a voice for "the people" during development hearings. A few NIMBY members in high position in a Neighborhood Association have tremendous power.

Unfortunately folk like myself (I live in Allendale) are not vocal and involved to any great degree with our local association...and thus allow the NIMBY voice to have a much louder and deciding voice. This needs to change if all of central Austin is to grow-up in a fair and equitable long term fashion.

I agree that the entire Lady Bird Lake area...from dam to dam is the front yard of Austin and every Austinite needs to be involved and have a voice. The Seaholm lease to private offices is to last 20 years. Hopefully by then the region will have matured to the point that several important cultural/attractions will want the building for true great public benefit. Austin apparently is not there yet.

Posted to wrong place and deleted