AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by smallfrie

Do those deaf kids pay property taxes? Are they an asset to the city? Why should they have a few feet of green space when a developer could build a some needle structures there?

WTF? Huh? I'm not suggesting that those kids should get screwed over or that they aren't any kind of asset. The site has a lot of green space. I'm just saying that they could raise some funds for the school by selling some of that Congress footage that I doubt they even use.

[Sigaven]

I remember some chatter awhile back about a sale in the works for the TSFTD - anything ever come of that?

And I'm all for more brown, orange, and cream colors, all of which Lake Flato is very good at. We have enoguh blue glass, let's bring about some more colors and textures.

[DougRockstead]

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

it's half a mile from the urban epicenter and houses 544 students on a surface area larger than the capitol grounds. the campus is 68 acres.

i've lived here for 20 years and have stepped on their campus twice. both times for charity.

i know they have a small museum but aside from that i don't know of any way the public interacts with it

it's perfectly reasonable to consider other options for a site that is funded by taxpayers. nobody wants to eliminate the school or force them into less adequate facilities.

the campus was laid out 40 years ago in a completely different austin and i don't think it makes sense for the city going forward to keep as is

the opportunity cost here is massive. we are forfeiting a lot here.

how many millions of dollars in property tax are we giving up every year?

how many thousands of hours of traffic are we taxing our residents with?

i get why it's a sensitive subject, but we are adults

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

40 years is historic now? no one is saying to shut the school down. calm down.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

please be serious doug

nobody is crying. the alternative use case for this lot is not TSFTD vs "a big building" nor is it the schools land to begin with.

it's been a great location for decades but the calculus just isn't there anymore for a 68 acre campus that serves 500 students in my opinion.

68 acres is easily
-15 acre park
-1000+ condos
-amphitheater
-dozens of jobs and 100+ jobs
-museum
-5 thru streets between first and congress which would go a long way towards decongesting barton springs road
-tens of millions of dollars in generated sales and property tax per year

vs

a property tax free campus that serves 500+ kids (that can easily be relocated) and doesn't interact with the city or residents very much

[Urbannizer]

The campus can be redeveloped at the current site while allowing new development. No need to displace the disabled out of a central location.

[The ATX]

I think a thin strip of retail buildings along S. Congress would be beneficial to the school and the City. That's if the State allows the school to keep 100% of the development revenue.

[Sigaven]

I would also love to see the site redeveloped with a solution that allows the school to stay but on a smaller, more urban footprint, while allowing more density, housing, and retail to fill up the site. We need more east-west connectivityin this city and I would love to see Nellie, James, and Gibson streets connected over to 1st. I've long dreamed of a hyper-urban development with some pedestrian-only streets and dense housing, shopping, restaurants, pocket parks, maybe even a theater or museum in this area, make it a new amenity for the city. Right now it's wasted space adjacent to one of our most cherished streets. Plus it could help spur development to bridge the sort of dead zone on 1st between Auditorium Shores and Elizabeth st.

[KevinFromTexas]

Charley Crockett filmed a promotional video at Mustang Pawn on South Congress for a new single he's releasing. They used the exterior and interior. They show him buying a guitar there. I wish I could find the clip on Youtube, but it's only on Facebook. This place is located a mile from me, and it's been there forever. He's also using the exterior for the album cover and also for the backdrop for some of the performances of the song he's doing, including on Jimmy Kimmel Live recently.

Google maps
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1...9MJbWO7A&hl=en

• Video Link• Video Link

I snapped this photo of it on the way home tonight.

[Green Country]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

This is 100% incorrect. There is no over supply. There is no oversaturation. There is no glut of unit. This is totally incorrect and very misleading. Austin is in no way over saturated. In fact Paul is correct in saying we have finally built enough units to finally stop the price gauging that these apartments have been charging for years. These Apartments and houses caught up to demand and are still selling out very quickly. Prices are not tanking but going back to normal numbers. We do not have an excessive amount of apartments but just the right number. We should not stop building because people are still moving here and new units are still under built.

https://www.rent.com/research/oversupplied-rental-market-behind-austins-dramatic-rent-swings/

Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, the elephant still exists, right there in the middle of the room.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...growth-austin/

December 2019 (pre-pandemic) average rent: $1291
December 2023 average rent: $1501. Yes, higher, but one also must take note of the other elephant in the room; substantial inflation over that time. In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the December 2019 rent would be about $!539 at the end of 2023. So, adjusted for inflation, rents are slightly lower now than before the pandemic, and continue to drop.

[Riverranchdrone]

Originally Posted by Green Country

https://www.rent.com/research/oversupplied-rental-market-behind-austins-dramatic-rent-swings/

Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, the elephant still exists, right there in the middle of the room.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...growth-austin/

December 2019 (pre-pandemic) average rent: $1291
December 2023 average rent: $1501. Yes, higher, but one also must take note of the other elephant in the room; substantial inflation over that time. In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the December 2019 rent would be about $!539 at the end of 2023. So, adjusted for inflation, rents are slightly lower now than before the pandemic, and continue to drop.

Ideal rent should be about half that. The super high rents show that demand is still much higher than demand. The huge increase in evictions is also indicative that rent is still way too high. We need a lot more supply to get prices down to historical averages.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by DougRockstead

I have to admit that I am a little shocked with everyone crying about how the School for the Deaf needs to sell their land so we can build a big building.
We aren't talking about a restaurant or bar. We are talking about a school that was started in 1856 and a campus built over 40 years ago.

This is real Texas history. Let's not forget about what this city is and how it came to be in our pursuit of progress.
I think the school for the Deaf is perfectly fine where it is and we can just build around it.

Beyond what anyone else is saying, it's a bit disingenuous to say the school being started in 1856 is a reason that they can't move. No one (that I am aware of) is pitching the idea of shutting the school down entirely to sell the land. In any situation I know of and that would have any reasonable chance of happening, it would either involve selling a portion of the land that currently sits totally unused, or otherwise relocating to completely new facilities funded via this sale -- similar to what Concordia University successfully did.

But the fact that the school itself is Texas history and worth preserving doesn't automatically equate to the need to every building on campus being historic. If it did, there should be just as much of a reason to preserve the Frank Erwin Center, which is also well over 40 years old and is part of a historic school founded in the 1800's.

[Green Country]

Originally Posted by Riverranchdrone

Ideal rent should be about half that. The super high rents show that demand is still much higher than demand. The huge increase in evictions is also indicative that rent is still way too high. We need a lot more supply to get prices down to historical averages.

Any source for the claim of a huge increase in evictions that was caused by high rents? The data I’ve seen shows evictions merely returning to their pre-pandemic (pre-eviction-moratorium) numbers. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/02...affordability/

Of course evictions increased when the moratorium was lifted. But they seem to have settled at about the usual rate.
https://evictionlab.org/eviction-tracking/austin-tx/

Just a quick reminder, from the initial inquiry, my primary overbuilding concern is the downtown market.

[Nickelplate]

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

Beyond what anyone else is saying, it's a bit disingenuous to say the school being started in 1856 is a reason that they can't move. No one (that I am aware of) is pitching the idea of shutting the school down entirely to sell the land. In any situation I know of and that would have any reasonable chance of happening, it would either involve selling a portion of the land that currently sits totally unused, or otherwise relocating to completely new facilities funded via this sale -- similar to what Concordia University successfully did.

But the fact that the school itself is Texas history and worth preserving doesn't automatically equate to the need to every building on campus being historic. If it did, there should be just as much of a reason to preserve the Frank Erwin Center, which is also well over 40 years old and is part of a historic school founded in the 1800's.

My son went to school here for 15 years and graduated in 2021. I understand the challenges of the deaf. Besides this being an iconic school in the Deaf community and a cultural beacon nationwide. It is also a historical place in Texas History older than than the Capital building. The Deaf have been persecuted and this is their place of refuge for over 150 years. They will never give it up nor should they. There are plenty of places to build generic housing other than this sacred plot of land.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by Nickelplate

My son went to school here for 15 years and graduated in 2021. I understand the challenges of the deaf. Besides this being an iconic school in the Deaf community and a cultural beacon nationwide. It is also a historical place in Texas History older than than the Capital building. The Deaf have been persecuted and this is their place of refuge for over 150 years. They will never give it up nor should they. There are plenty of places to build generic housing other than this sacred plot of land.

Are you saying that the land itself is older than the Capital building, and that's why it's historic? Because the oldest still-standing buildings on the campus were built in 1925 and 1928, and everything else was from between the 50's and 80's. TSD's own master plan speaks several times about how functionally none of what the school was in the 19th century (when it operated as an asylum) is around today.

If you mean the school itself has been on the same plot of land, then the capital is still older, as it was originally built 3 years prior to TSD's founding (just torn down and replaced by a new building).

Either way, I've yet to see any proposals that didn't involve the full approval of TSD administration as part of it, as would be expected. If the school never wants to do anything with the acres of unused land, no one has been looking to force them into it.

[drummer]

^ Thanks for sharing your perspective, Nickelplate. I have a son with physical disabilities and a rare disease - while I can't speak to any experiences with hearing-impairments, I can appreciate the unique challenges and opportunities there.

[chinchaaa]

No one is saying close the school. So dramatic.

[Nickelplate]

@Geckos_Rule
I just grabbed your quote to spew my insider opinion. I appreciate your knowledge and research of the school. But it really is a mute point as the school is a crucial fixture of the deaf community currently. Why would we hamper its existence? This is an asset to the community and should be enhanced. It was in the 90's. Problem is, it is controlled by the state and that is filled with red tape and money delegation.
@Drummer
Thanks for the support! It really is a challenge but one we can all overcome with R/D and education.
@Chinchaa
Never agreed or liked anything you have contributed to this forum.