AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III - Page 86

AusTex · #1 Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestAustinite

Once 2nd st is extended and Seaholm becomes the obvious retail bookend to downtown, Council will regret having ever benn talking into allowing office use by developers with a short term focus on their own ROI and not the greater good of having. Truly impressive retail or cultural destination spot. You can put 117,000 SF of office space in any office tower but you will never have another Seaholm. A "once every few generation" opportunity lost...

I agree...a lost opportunity for many years at least!

I wonder if Council is regretting selling Green as one piece to one company? Green reminds me of when I was in school in Los Angeles in the 1980's and their City Council did the same thing with California Plaza on Bunker Hill. It took years to finish and several big changes to the plan...including not building one tower. I hope we get a great cityscape change with Green, however, their latest version could be built anywhere USA. I hope the delay means a better product. Matching twin towers do not belong on the water front IMO.

NYC_Longhorn · #2 Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 3:05 AM**

Don't get me wrong... I love the buildings.... but the real estate agents and crap hustlers that wanted to turn that space into an office really really suck....

I mean... comon'

It's almost as if someone from Houston or Dallas moved to Austin and said, "offices are great here!"

Arggggghhhhh

ATXboom · #3 Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 6:36 PM**

Odd... this article mentions a new mixed use plus hotel near Stubbs...

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...ot-across.html

Jdawgboy · #4 Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Odd... this article mentions a new mixed use plus hotel near Stubbs...

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...ot-across.html

I'm not surprised seeing as how they are getting closer to finishing the Waller Creek Tunnel. I would imagine a lot of land is being looked at around there.

GoldenBoot · #5 Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin242

I honestly would rather wait 10 years and get retail up in that bitch. I don't think offices should be built in seaholm it pisses me off. It should be something cool. I would honestly rather the city have put money into that and made a farmers market themselves than have had a new central library.

I agree. I've been advocating for years that a permanent market (similar to Seattle's Pike Place Market) be developed at Seaholm. Nonetheless, I do realize that office space will ultimately increase the developer’s profit margin far more than our version of Pike Place.

MichaelB · #6 Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

I agree. I've been advocating for years that a permanent market (similar to Seattle's Pike Place Market) be developed at Seaholm. Nonetheless, I do realize that office space will ultimately increase the developer’s profit margin far more than our version of Pike Place.

yeah... I was just discussing this o the Seaholm thread. A perhaps more parallel example would be Clevelands West side market ( really Ohio City). But Seaholm seems to big to be compared to either. The space has so much below and above what would be needed it doesn't seem feasible $ wise without the city subsiding it. Does it? I know it's moot now, but would that really work there? I don't feel generic retail would work there and that's the discussion I was prompting on the other thread.. Would that now just end up being a downtown mall that rarely works, especially not in Snow regions. It just seems that in order to make the $ work without the city having to subsidise it, that the space has to be better utilized vertiaclly inside the building. Do you know , or anyone if those plans have emerged? That being , how the space will be used.?

My other question, also moot now, Is if the space could have been better used at the Libray ....then maybe combined with other public uses?

I think it is sage to assume that there were serious $ discussions about all of this in deciding a plan that would keep the building and not have it be a $ burden on the city.

OU812 · #7 Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 6:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austin242

I honestly would rather wait 10 years and get retail up in that bitch. I don't think offices should be built in seaholm it pisses me off. It should be something cool. I would honestly rather the city have put money into that and made a farmers market themselves than have had a new central library.

I think most people would feel this way if asked- having Seaholm as office space essentially turns into a "PRIVATE" building vs. the PUBLIC facility that it SHOULD be. I mean it's such a landmark- WTF...offices?!?!?

I remember hearing at one point in years past that it could be a mass transit hub. That would have been PERFECT. Seaholm looks like the ultimate "Union Station" for dt Aus.

lzppjb · #8 Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 6:22 AM**

Yeah, I'm not worried about Seaholm being offices. As long as they keep the awesome architecture, I'm fine with it. I also want the sign to stay. A market would have been cool and all, but it's not some deal-breaker for me.

Homecreek · #9 Posted **Apr 21, 2013, 3:19 AM**

Does anyone know what the red crane near 183 and 360 is about?

JoninATX · #10 Posted **Apr 21, 2013, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homecreek

Does anyone know what the red crane near 183 and 360 is about?

The project is called Broadstone Arboretum.

Homecreek · #11 Posted **Apr 21, 2013, 3:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninATX

The project is called Broadstone Arboretum.

Thanks!

Mopacs · #12 Posted **Apr 22, 2013, 4:00 AM**

Here are some photos of Skyhouse I took this weekend.

Mopacs · #13 Posted **Apr 22, 2013, 4:23 AM**

Here are few shots of the completed Hyatt Place hotel, and its surroundings

Behind the JW Marriott

Atop the convention center garage

Interesting view. I actually like the way the buildings line up

ahealy · #14 Posted **Apr 22, 2013, 4:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Here are few shots of the completed Hyatt Place hotel, and its surroundings

Behind the JW Marriott

Atop the convention center garage

Interesting view. I actually like the way the buildings line up

That Hyatt Place is so freaking ugly. I'm ready for some good looking buildings (311, seaholm, 7rio, JW). I still wish some of the pre-recession projects survived. Imagine.....

pscajunguy · #15 Posted **Apr 22, 2013, 5:01 AM**

You are so right. Those new hotels remind me of downtown Wichita Falls. And this is with apologies to Wichita Falls!

AusTex · #16 Posted **Apr 23, 2013, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Here are some photos of Skyhouse I took this weekend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Here are few shots of the completed Hyatt Place hotel, and its surroundings

Behind the JW Marriott

Atop the convention center garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

That Hyatt Place is so freaking ugly. I'm ready for some good looking buildings (311, seaholm, 7rio, JW). I still wish some of the pre-recession projects survived. Imagine.....

IMO all of these buildings (Windsor on the Lake, The Shore, Hyatt Place and Hampton Inn & Suites) share the same "UGLY" truth. They are all clad in cheap stucco. Add the Hilton Hotel and several others to the list too. Stucco should be banned on any high rise structures. The weather stains stucco quickly and stucco simply looks cheap to begin with. Just my opinion.

MichaelB · #17 Posted **Apr 23, 2013, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austex

IMO all of these buildings (Windsor on the Lake, The Shore, Hyatt Place and Hampton Inn & Suites) share the same "UGLY" truth. They are all clad in cheap stucco. Add the Hilton Hotel and several others to the list too. Stucco should be banned on any high rise structures. The weather stains stucco quickly and stucco simply looks cheap to begin with. Just my opinion.

you are not alone in that assessment!

KevinFromTexas · #18 Posted **Apr 22, 2013, 5:17 AM**

Nice pictures. Rainey Street is really coming along.

migol24 · #19 Posted **Apr 23, 2013, 11:59 PM**

can we at least make an exception for the shore? i really like that building.

AusTex · #20 Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by migol24

can we at least make an exception for the shore? i really like that building.

Yes...OK...The Shore does have that Miami...deco...vibe. Most of the facade has other "stuff" going on; balconies, etc....

Now the City of Austin…(to be owned in the future by the city)…Hilton is an eyesore. Yes the city will take possession of the Hilton in less than 50 years! Why-O-Why did the city allow the Hilton to be clad in stucco…!...?...!

AND why is it allowed above 5 stories now, is a mystery to me. Austin is better than stucco.

Most cities will not allow stucco on high rises! The NEW World Trade Center One, in New York (Freedom Tower) sure would be improved if it had stucco!!!!!

NO MORE STUCCO in DOWNTOWN AUSTIN!