Austin | Conrad Residences (307 E. 2nd St.) | 755 Feet | 62 Floors | Never Built - Page 3

The ATX · #1 Posted **May 18, 2021, 4:14 PM**

The site plan was approved and released today.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyRSN=93500

That was too quick for a full project site plan, and it is described as a "Concept Site Plan." There is also a Design Submission permit still in progress:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyrsn=93500

For whatever reason, this project is not following the typical permitting route.

The ATX · #2 Posted **May 20, 2021, 3:51 AM**

And today they filed an actual site plan. I guess they were waiting for the concept site plan to be approved:

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyrsn=93500

H2O · #3 Posted **May 20, 2021, 11:34 AM**

Yeah, the conceptual site plan process is relatively new (185 used it). It allows the developer to vest some entitlements if there are fuzzy areas such as overlays without spending a lot of money on engineering required for a complete site plan. In this case, I bet they did it to fend off the City's attempt to acquire development rights on the same property.

InFillForLife · #4 Posted **May 20, 2021, 1:18 PM**

It's to get a Completeness Check in-place before the new Downtown Density Program comes into effect, hoping to get grand fathered in before the crazy new fees become the norm.

I believe Tovo makes the proposal today.

427MM · #5 Posted **May 20, 2021, 7:42 PM**

Always efforts from some to make development more expensive. Crickets when it comes to making development more efficient. Of course we're in a huge housing crisis. Glad we have term limits, wish they were adhered to.

We vs us · #6 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 1:07 AM**

Not that they’re apples to apples, but 6X is 65 floors. Just spitballing but I’d bet this one is a 700 footer.

paul78701 · #7 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Not that they’re apples to apples, but 6X is 65 floors. Just spitballing but I’d bet this one is a 700 footer.

This will only occupy about 1/4 of a block though. It's going to look like a toothpick standing up in the skyline and could be reminiscent of those super skinny condo buildings in NYC.

davidberko · #8 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul78701

This will only occupy about 1/4 of a block though. It's going to look like a toothpick standing up in the skyline and could be reminiscent of those super skinny condo buildings in NYC.

Excellent point. I think it's awesome we're getting skinny towers. I love the Hyatt or whatever hotel that is at 8th and congress and now possibly this. Build baby build! The thinner the better

H2O · #9 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 12:06 PM**

No retail because owners can't mingle with lower caste renters.

wwmiv · #10 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 12:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

No retail because owners can't mingle with lower caste renters.

This is on point. There is zero practical reason for separate lobbies and the only impractical reason is elitism.

Frankly, the city should pass a statute restricting developments to a single residential lobby.

Of course, all that would do is move the city to fewer mixed residential model developments and more single-type residential developments, regardless if situated in a mixed use (e.g. office, hospitality, retail) structure overall. Because #elitism will only buy where they can seclude and keep their money and skills to themselves.

So... build it into the downtown density bonus process instead?

myBrain · #11 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 7:52 PM**

On another note, it really is a shame in Austin that we only ever seem to use the first floor for retail/restaurant space. The only two good examples I can think of that extend retail past the first floor are the Aloft and 70 Rainey. I guess the limitation is that it pushes the parking garage up additional levels?

Azul · #12 Posted **Jul 27, 2021, 8:05 PM**

I think a big reason you don't see a lot of joint lobbies between condos and apartments is because of the maintainance. These condos have Condo Associations that pay dues for maintenance, repairs, etc. and I'd imagine sharing common areas with a full-scale rental portion of the building creates some grey area on who pays for what and how. If the lobbies are separate then the Condo Association pays 100% of the maintenance while the Apartment Management pays for 100% of their lobby. If it's shared, then I'm sure the legal agreements between these two entities get a little denser.

H2O · #13 Posted **Jul 28, 2021, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azul

I think a big reason you don't see a lot of joint lobbies between condos and apartments is because of the maintainance. These condos have Condo Associations that pay dues for maintenance, repairs, etc. and I'd imagine sharing common areas with a full-scale rental portion of the building creates some grey area on who pays for what and how. If the lobbies are separate then the Condo Association pays 100% of the maintenance while the Apartment Management pays for 100% of their lobby. If it's shared, then I'm sure the legal agreements between these two entities get a little denser.

If it is all one building, the rental portion has to be part of the condominium association. There is no reason why common area maintenance cannot be pro-rated between the two entities.

ILUVSAT · #14 Posted **Jul 28, 2021, 4:49 PM**

Question: If a tower includes hotel and residential - wouldn't those lobbies and elevators be separate? Same as in a mixed use tower where hotel, office and residential uses are shared. Those lobbies and elevators are also separate.

I don't see a problem in separating the rental entrance from that of those who own units.

StoOgE · #15 Posted **Jul 28, 2021, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Question: If a tower includes hotel and residential - wouldn't those lobbies and elevators be separate? Same as in a mixed use tower where hotel, office and residential uses are shared. Those lobbies and elevators are also separate.

I don't see a problem in separating the rental entrance from that of those who own units.

It's very very common in NYC. The "poor doors" were somewhat controversial since some of the rental units were low income.

But condos often don't want to share amenities with renters.