AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Raining Inside]

Phase II of the toll roads set to start!

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...30roundup.html

TOLL ROADS

Work on six projects can go on

Engineering work on six toll road projects, which the Texas Department of Transportation's money crunches shelved for six months, can move forward after a 4-1 vote Thursday by the Texas Transportation Commission.

The commission's nod essentially puts the projects — adding managed lanes to MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1); expanding portions of U.S. 290 East, U.S. 183, Texas 71 and the "Y" at Oak Hill as toll roads; and building one new road, Texas 45 Southwest — in the hands of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority.

That agency plans to borrow $65 million for engineering and right-of-way costs and needed the commission vote to move forward. Actual construction on the first of the projects, U.S. 290 East, remains at least a year away.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by zx14

I have noticed with the buiding of 360 and the Austonian that there is a clear elevator shaft in the middle. Is that the only place where elevators will be or are there more on the sides. Also it would be a Travis sty if the Austonian did not have a observation deck. It could really make lots of money. Also Austin will be the only city where its tallest building is called what its peope are in that city. Whell Austinite is what it is but close none the less. THey could name the Chicago spire the Chicagoin or Jp Morgan Chase the Houstonian.

Don't fret, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Austonian won't be Austin's tallest for very long after it's completed. Hopefully we'll start seeing 60 and 70+ story towers soon thereafter... And maybe the T.Stacy deal will actually go through.

I know the local environmentalists will hate this, but I wish developers would build high-rise residential towers atop the hills of west Austin (especially along Highway 360). Now imagine THAT view!

[shanny]

NOOOOOOO! those of us who live in west austin HATE those buildings and were not necessarily environmentalists.

have you seen what they are doing to 2222? its pissing people off.

as i have said many times and will continue to say, keep those buildings in the valleys, or down on the plains where they belong

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by OU812

h.

I know the local environmentalists will hate this, but I wish developers would build high-rise residential towers atop the hills of west Austin (especially along Highway 360). Now imagine THAT view!

you just said that to watch the fire works didn't you? Wow... I wouldn't even know where to start with how many things are wrong with that statement.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by OU812

Don't fret, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Austonian won't be Austin's tallest for very long after it's completed. Hopefully we'll start seeing 60 and 70+ story towers soon thereafter... And maybe the T.Stacy deal will actually go through.

I know the local environmentalists will hate this, but I wish developers would build high-rise residential towers atop the hills of west Austin (especially along Highway 360). Now imagine THAT view!

No offense, but that's a horrible idea. And it's no way to get 60 and 70-story buildings to show up in downtown. If Austin stays the path it's going, and only develops in downtown and The Domain and a few other dense pockets, then we'll end up with one of the best, if not the best skyline in the state. Allowing sprawl all around the city along the city's highwaysm will of course decrease demand for space in downtown.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

No offense, but that's a horrible idea. And it's no way to get 60 and 70-story buildings to show up in downtown. If Austin stays the path it's going, and only develops in downtown and The Domain and a few other dense pockets, then we'll end up with one of the best, if not the best skyline in the state. Allowing sprawl all around the city along the city's highwaysm will of course decrease demand for space in downtown.

And amen, Goldenboot. I've seen projects proposed and all hyped about in the paper, only to have them start months or even years after their original published start date. And of course, some of them never even started. So, until I see cranes flying, I don't get overly excited other than the fact that such a project is even being proposed at all.

Also, it's been said before, but Ovation doesn't have anything to do with the Green Redevelopment. The only reason it was mentioned in that Green Water Treatment Plant PDF file by Forest City, is that Forest City is teaming up with Andrews Urban and Novare for their Green proposal. Andrews Urban and Novare of course are developing Ovation, along with the block 51 tower, 360 Condos and TWELVE Domain. The only reason Ovation was thrown in there is to give an idea of what people should expected from Andrews Urban and Novare, who are partnering with Forest City.

Highway 360 is already starting to become heavily developed. Look at all the multi story apartment complexes on top of the hills now. Sooner or later there will be high rise condos on those hills too. Let's face it, it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN. The enviros can only fight for so long. 20 years from now I would imagine that Highway 360 will be dotted with high rises. I mean the area is ripe for condo skyscrapers because of it's stunning views. But of course they will only be priced for a millionaires salary so I won't be able to live there!

[shanny]

westlake will do everything it can to prevent that from happening

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by OU812

Highway 360 is already starting to become heavily developed. Look at all the multi story apartment complexes on top of the hills now. Sooner or later there will be high rise condos on those hills too. Let's face it, it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN. The enviros can only fight for so long. 20 years from now I would imagine that Highway 360 will be dotted with high rises. I mean the area is ripe for condo skyscrapers because of it's stunning views. But of course they will only be priced for a millionaires salary so I won't be able to live there!

You aren't from Austin are you?

No way. It would be grotesquely irresponsible to allow that to happen. Also, the density in downtown and other parts of the city does not warrant that kind of density along Loop 360. It would be premature to develop 360 in that way. Also, Austin is no Pittsburgh, Nashville, Cincinnati or Birmingham, where those cities are pinned in and surrounded by hills. Austin only has hills on the west. The east side of the metro is pretty flat and easy to develop densely. It just doesn't make sense to put dense development along the city's western edge. Develop the rest of the city, central, north, south and eastern areas densely, so that the western areas can be natural and enjoyed by everyone.

[Raining Inside]

The Hill Country to the west is one of the things that make Austin desirable. If the hills get paved over more than they already are it would be tragic. This is one big reason to love SH130 (regardless of how any one may feel about toll roads) because it will help direct development to the east.

Although if there were condos on top of the hills I wouldn't mind living there for the view. And yes, I know that's hypocritical.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

If you visit the observation hill in Butler Park, you'll overhear a lot of conversations about the skyline and buildings. Frost Bank Tower, and all the other buildings, as well as what's being proposed. It's interesting to eaves drop on people's conversations regarding highrises. Every once in a while I direct them here.



You aren't from Austin are you?

No way. It would be grotesquely irresponsible to allow that to happen. Also, the density in downtown and other parts of the city does not warrant that kind of density along Loop 360. It would be premature to develop 360 in that way. Also, Austin is no Pittsburgh, Nashville, Cincinnati or Birmingham, where those cities are pinned in and surrounded by hills. Austin only has hills on the west. The east side of the metro is pretty flat and easy to develop densely. It just doesn't make sense to put dense development along the city's western edge. Develop the rest of the city, central, north, south and eastern areas densely, so that the western areas can be natural and enjoyed by everyone.

Yes I am from Austin. But growth is inevitable for a city like Austin. And all I am alluding to is that ultimately the market will determine what gets built where. Yes west of Austin is the only part of the region with hills, but the hills go faaaar beyond Highway 360. Austin is just on the 'edge' of the hill country. And yeah you could build high rise condos on the flat plains of the east, north, or south- but the ones that will be in highest demand and will sell for top dollar are the ones surrounded by hills.

360 is already partially urbanized and in 20+ years it will be more so. The only sure thing is that change will happen eventually. Enviros will fight and fight, but sooner or later that fight will end, is it always does in "Anytown USA". The side with the most money wins. In this case that will usually be the developers. I mean look at what's happening to "Save Our Springs". Aren't they in a bit of a financial mess right now?

Of course the majority of the hill country will stay undeveloped and pristine for decades, perhaps millinea. But the areas closest to Austin will sooner or later become developed. Look at what's happening around the Bee Cave area with all the new strip malls. Can you imagine that happening 20 years ago? The locals would have went insane.

[KevinFromTexas]

Those strip malls in Bee Cave are disgusting. It's a soulless wasteland.

Also, developing areas with high rises such as Loop 360 would be pointless. You wouldn't have a true urban walkable dense neighborhood. It would just be a gated, luxury type development which would add nothing to the area. If you're going to develop skyscrapers, have them be placed in an urban setting and context. Just randomly placed and remote high rises, are no better than any other type of sprawl. It's been said over and over again on this forum from people who live in the most dense urban places, that skyscrapers have nothing to do with density or urbanity. It's all about what's happening at street level. The only real reason anyone would ask for skyscrapers in West Austin is for the views. But it would be just as easy to purchase a vacant lot there and build your own house. Anyone living in that area probably cares very little about an urban environment or urban experience, other wise they'd be living downtown. And believe me, they can afford it. The houses that dot the hills in West Austin are some of the most expensive homes in Texas. Building skyscrapers for the sake of having skyscrapers is not responsible.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Those strip malls in Bee Cave are disgusting. It's a soulless wasteland.

Also, developing areas with high rises such as Loop 360 would be pointless. You wouldn't have a true urban walkable dense neighborhood. It would just be a gated, luxury type development which would add nothing to the area. If you're going to develop skyscrapers, have them be placed in an urban setting and context. Just randomly placed and remote high rises, are no better than any other type of sprawl. It's been said over and over again on this forum from people who live in the most dense urban places, that skyscrapers have nothing to do with density or urbanity. It's all about what's happening at street level. The only real reason anyone would ask for skyscrapers in West Austin is for the views. But it would be just as easy to purchase a vacant lot there and build your own house. Anyone living in that area probably cares very little about an urban environment or urban experience, other wise they'd be living downtown. And believe me, they can afford it. The houses that dot the hills in West Austin are some of the most expensive homes in Texas. Building skyscrapers for the sake of having skyscrapers is not responsible.

Everybody knows the number one rule of real estate= location. Also, the one thing that will always retain high value for real estate= a great view. Whether it's "responsible" or not isn't the point. It's whether or not a developer can make a profit. Why build one single family million dollar house on top of a hill (with a great view) when you can build a high rise building with multiple residences (each with a great view) worth many MANY more millions of dollars. Yes it would probably be gated and only cater to the wealthy (not to mention it would only make me jealous). But someday it will happen, eventually. It might take 20, 30, 40 years- but I'm pretty certain that Highway 360 will be filled with high rise condo buildings someday. Like I said, there are already sections of apartments on top of these hills now.

[austintilIdie]

Rather than look to Loop 360 too early, there are plenty of opportunities in downtown and the city core to address density and IMHO, already I think parts of the Domain are going to look really ugly with some missed opportunities.

I'm looking forward to the day when certain corridors/arteries take new shape piece by piece, rezoning for smarter in-fill (parking lots are ugly) and bringing development to closer to the street, mixed use up to 6-7 stories tall.. Burnet Road, North Lamar Blvd come to mind....upper SoCo/SoLamar and the Drag just north of the UT campus have already taken that step.

Down the line I could see higher development on 360 at Mopac/Barton Creek Mall, at 2244, at 2222 and the N183/Arboretum/Gateway nexus...but certainly not a canyon of them all up and down 360....but then you have address traffic/transit issues to accommodate that concentration of growth and burden.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by OU812

Yes I am from Austin. But growth is inevitable for a city like Austin. And all I am alluding to is that ultimately the market will determine what gets built where. Yes west of Austin is the only part of the region with hills, but the hills go faaaar beyond Highway 360. Austin is just on the 'edge' of the hill country. And yeah you could build high rise condos on the flat plains of the east, north, or south- but the ones that will be in highest demand and will sell for top dollar are the ones surrounded by hills.

360 is already partially urbanized and in 20+ years it will be more so. The only sure thing is that change will happen eventually. Enviros will fight and fight, but sooner or later that fight will end, is it always does in "Anytown USA". The side with the most money wins. In this case that will usually be the developers. I mean look at what's happening to "Save Our Springs". Aren't they in a bit of a financial mess right now?

Of course the majority of the hill country will stay undeveloped and pristine for decades, perhaps millinea. But the areas closest to Austin will sooner or later become developed. Look at what's happening around the Bee Cave area with all the new strip malls. Can you imagine that happening 20 years ago? The locals would have went insane.

I tried to make this non-confrontational, but I seem to have failed.

The question would be why do you live in Austin? Sorry but I think your point of view is very old school and "Enviro"mentally offensive. Why do you speak so offensively about "Enviros" when you need to be thanking them that there is indeed a hill country left. Yes, growth is inevidible, we will grow up and out, but to think that the only force at work will be developers needs to be balanced. Yours seems to be a pure profit point of view and will, in the long run compromise the natural resources we have, and drive down the natural value of the region. From a smart Capitalist point of view: Pro density and pro growth need to be pro environment, that way the basic qualities which make our hills attractive will not go away and help maintain the value of the region. It is simply a very old and selfish model to blindly profit from the quality that makes any area unique and not consider how to perpetuate said quaitly in order to keep the intrinsic values high. I understand that base level developers can not be expected to understand this. However, I continue to have faith that enough decent citizens will force a balance between devlopment and environment. I personally look forward to a denser Austin.... but one that still has respect for the environment around it, and the value that "enviro"nment brings to the quality of life in the region.

[KevinFromTexas]

^ The reason I say that highrise condos and apartments along Loop 360 and other West Austin areas like that are pointless, is that they wouldn't cater to the right crowd, and they really couldn't cater to any crowd in that area of town. Urbanists won't live there because it'll just be gated communities. No true walkable urban neighborhood with the vibe of downtown. There will be no retail, with no good public transportation. Do you really think city buses are going to be able to maneuver those hills? I doubt it. Any kind of rail transportation would be even less likely. So with that much density along Loop 360 and no chance for public transportation, it would be gridlock on 360. The other crowd which are your people who would never in a million years consider living downtown, won't live in a highrise either, even if had views. They want a big lot, a three car garage for their Hummers and Cadillacs, a pool deck and hot tub. They want a yard. Also, putting highrises along Loop 360 from a view standpoint would again be pointless. The hills there are between 200 and 400 feet tall. Even if you built a 200 foot tower (very, very unlikely), along Loop 360, the views from the building wouldn't be very good. It would be like putting the Empire State Building at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Sure, it's a tall building, but you'd still just be looking at canyon walls. Anything taller than that so you could have views would be shot down. Not just by environmentalists, but by neighborhood groups and just about everyone who disagreed with it. Also, you say the reason for putting highrises there would be to take advantage of the views of the hills. But if you build a bunch of highrises, there won't be any views of the hills. Density belongs in downtown and Central Austin and a few pockets around town and along major corridors where it can take advantage of public transportation and be a true walkable urban environment. But not in an area where our drinking water comes from. Urbanity and density is about steering growth away from environmentally sensitive areas and places that should be left untouched for everyone to enjoy. You're talking about turning West Austin into Houston, and it's gross.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

^ The reason I say that highrise condos and apartments along Loop 360 and other West Austin areas like that are pointless, is that they wouldn't cater to the right crowd, and they really couldn't cater to any crowd in that area of town. Urbanists won't live there because it'll just be gated communities. No true walkable urban neighborhood with the vibe of downtown. There will be no retail, with no good public transportation. Do you really think city buses are going to be able to maneuver those hills? I doubt it. Any kind of rail transportation would be even less likely. So with that much density along Loop 360 and no chance for public transportation, it would be gridlock on 360. The other crowd which are your people who would never in a million years consider living downtown, won't live in a highrise either, even if had views. They want a big lot, a three car garage for their Hummers and Cadillacs, a pool deck and hot tub. They want a yard. Also, putting highrises along Loop 360 from a view standpoint would again be pointless. The hills there are between 200 and 400 feet tall. Even if you built a 200 foot tower (very, very unlikely), along Loop 360, the views from the building wouldn't be very good. It would be like putting the Empire State Building at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Sure, it's a tall building, but you'd still just be looking at canyon walls. Anything taller than that so you could have views would be shot down. Not just by environmentalists, but by neighborhood groups and just about everyone who disagreed with it. Also, you say the reason for putting highrises there would be to take advantage of the views of the hills. But if you build a bunch of highrises, there won't be any views of the hills. Density belongs in downtown and Central Austin and a few pockets around town and along major corridors where it can take advantage of public transportation and be a true walkable urban environment. But not in an area where our drinking water comes from. Urbanity and density is about steering growth away from environmentally sensitive areas and places that should be left untouched for everyone to enjoy. You're talking about turning West Austin into Houston, and it's gross.

yep.

[Aiphanes]

Austin's freeways are screwed up....loop 360 needs to be expanded and turned into a real really or a tollway. Austin has serious traffic issues for a city its size...

San Antonio is twice as big and has no traffic issues as bad as Austin does.

There is no way they will build a residental highrise on loop 360.....a midrise office tower would be max.

Austin is not that much of a spread out city...sure people live in George Town and Round Rock and travel in...but it is no way as spread out as dallas, houston and San Antonio.

What Austin needs is a loop that goes all around the city like loop 410 or Loop 1604.

Austin should learn from San Antonio is freeway structure...and San Antonio should learn from Austin is downtown Highrise development.

Downtown Austin has got perfect design is my opinion...I think Austin has largely forgotten the rest of the city.

By the way I use to live in Austin for 7 years, before i moved to San Antonio...so I know both cities. I knew Austin back in the mid 80s to early 90s...those were the beautiful times in Austin....its still an awesome city...but for you folks who did not see Austin before it is what it is now...you missed a lot.

[Aiphanes]

Originally Posted by Raining Inside

The Hill Country to the west is one of the things that make Austin desirable. If the hills get paved over more than they already are it would be tragic. This is one big reason to love SH130 (regardless of how any one may feel about toll roads) because it will help direct development to the east.

Although if there were condos on top of the hills I wouldn't mind living there for the view. And yes, I know that's hypocritical.

They will never completely pave over the top of the awesome hills...but look at how much development there is at Lake Travis...much more than Lake Austin...

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, I should also put on about 50 or 60 pounds. No thanks.

[Dragonfire]

They're actually going to do the managed lanes on Loop 1? What a bunch of idiots. Let's make it more dangerous to drive on MoPac...