Austin | 305 S. Congress | 6 Towers - 215'/295'/365'/375'/445'/525' | Proposed - Page 21

We vs us · #1 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dilliam

Sounds like a solid win-win

Agreed. I'm definitely team money-for-housing-to-be-named-later. Money in the bank gives you the most flex, and the most leverage. I'd rather have that than have to finagle a handful of units per development, or per tower, or whatever.

jake.robs · #2 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 5:15 PM**

All I want for Christmas is a 700 footer on the Statesman site.

StoOgE · #3 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 8:05 PM**

I seriously doubt they got a 725' zoning if they aren't planning on going higher than 525

jake.robs · #4 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I seriously doubt they got a 725' zoning if they aren't planning on going higher than 525

Per the article linked above, it appears there was special zoning permission just passed to allow up to 725 feet. Given the recent height increases of a lot of projects, I don't think its a stretch that there could be one on this massive project.

lzppjb · #5 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 10:35 PM**

700' south of the river would be wild.

We vs us · #6 Posted **Dec 6, 2022, 10:49 PM**

The Statesman PUD isn't even the whole shebang . . . all of those TXDOT lowrises and parking lots will go away eventually, too. If the Statesman beats '700, I'd bet that there's opportunity for more on that side of the river as the rest of it gets built out.

drummer · #7 Posted **Dec 7, 2022, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

The Statesman PUD isn't even the whole shebang . . . all of those TXDOT lowrises and parking lots will go away eventually, too. If the Statesman beats '700, I'd bet that there's opportunity for more on that side of the river as the rest of it gets built out.

...and that is precisely what I'm hoping for, 700 footer or not.

Urbannizer · #8 Posted **Feb 20, 2023, 9:56 PM**

https://www.austintexas.gov/305-scongress

LiveattheOasis · #9 Posted **Feb 20, 2023, 10:47 PM**

On Texas Independence Day, hopefully it's a sign of doing some unique and excellent on the Statesman Site, and getting it started ASAP.

Urbannizer · #10 Posted **Mar 9, 2023, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

https://www.austintexas.gov/305-scongress

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de...-02-23-web.pdf

urbancore · #11 Posted **Apr 24, 2023, 5:56 PM**

file this under: Should have seen this coming

suite was filed today by, among others, SOS and some local twits...including former Senator Barrientos, and Ora Houston, to stop the TIRZ use for this area.

As much as I hate to say it, the plaintiffs have a point. I wish they would just the let market handle this. Now this project will be delayed another 5-10 years.

Novacek · #12 Posted **Apr 25, 2023, 1:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

As much as I hate to say it, the plaintiffs have a point.

They do? What’s their point?

They claim that a TIRZ can only be used for blight, which is flat out false under Texas law.

H2O · #13 Posted **Apr 26, 2023, 11:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

They do? What’s their point?

They claim that a TIRZ can only be used for blight, which is flat out false under Texas law.

The State statute specifically says something to the effect that the purpose of a TIRZ is to mitigate blight. The TIRZ plan needs to cite the blighting influence of an abandoned newspaper plant on the waterfront, but it does not require proof of blight. That is up to the judgement of the policy makers that approve the TIRZ plan. Blight is subjective. Some might call it 'character' or 'texture'.

Novacek · #14 Posted **Apr 26, 2023, 2:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

The State statute specifically says something to the effect that the purpose of a TIRZ is to mitigate blight.

No, it doesn't.

The word "blight" doesn't even appear in 311.005

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...11.htm#311.005

I believe the city has cited reasons (B) and (C) (though they only need 1, it's an OR)

(B) the predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalk or street layout;

(C) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(a-1) is also rather interesting, and it seems like the TIRZ could qualify on that basis as well, but I don't think the city cited it.

" Notwithstanding Subsection (a), if the proposed project plan for a potential zone includes the use of land in the zone in connection with the operation of an existing or proposed regional commuter or mass transit rail system, or for a structure or facility that is necessary, useful, or beneficial to such a regional rail system, the governing body of a municipality may designate an area as a reinvestment zone."

H2O · #15 Posted **Apr 26, 2023, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

No, it doesn't.

The word "blight" doesn't even appear in 311.005

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...11.htm#311.005

I believe the city has cited reasons (B) and (C) (though they only need 1, it's an OR)

(B) the predominance of defective or inadequate sidewalk or street layout;

(C) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(a-1) is also rather interesting, and it seems like the TIRZ could qualify on that basis as well, but I don't think the city cited it.

" Notwithstanding Subsection (a), if the proposed project plan for a potential zone includes the use of land in the zone in connection with the operation of an existing or proposed regional commuter or mass transit rail system, or for a structure or facility that is necessary, useful, or beneficial to such a regional rail system, the governing body of a municipality may designate an area as a reinvestment zone."

HUH. I could have sworn the statute used the actual term 'blight' because I always thought it was an antiquated and loaded term. But the conditions described do add up to blight:

(1) substantially arrest or impair the sound growth of the municipality or county designating the zone, retard the provision of housing accommodations, or constitute an economic or social liability and be a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use because of the presence of:

(A) a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;

ETC.

freerover · #16 Posted **Apr 26, 2023, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

The State statute specifically says something to the effect that the purpose of a TIRZ is to mitigate blight. The TIRZ plan needs to cite the blighting influence of an abandoned newspaper plant on the waterfront, but it does not require proof of blight. That is up to the judgement of the policy makers that approve the TIRZ plan. Blight is subjective. Some might call it 'character' or 'texture'.

I admire you're willingness to use the word "specifically" and the term "something to the effect" so close to each other in a single sentence.

the Genral · #17 Posted **Apr 26, 2023, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerover

I admire you're willingness to use the word "specifically" and the term "something to the effect" so close to each other in a single sentence.

That's what I sometimes always say.

enragedcamel · #18 Posted **Apr 25, 2023, 7:33 AM**

austin is a failed city

Echostatic · #19 Posted **Apr 25, 2023, 1:50 PM**

No more than anywhere else in America. At least we actually build things, even if it takes too long and costs too much. Some cities don't check the first box.

chinchaaa · #20 Posted **Apr 25, 2023, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

No more than anywhere else in America. At least we actually build things, even if it takes too long and costs too much. Some cities don't check the first box.

the NIMBYs and conservatives in this city are actively making it worse. austin would be a world class city if it was in another state and people didn't have some weird vendetta against the "liberals".