AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 433

The ATX · #**8641** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 1:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by migol24

eh.... that makes no difference to me. I'm all about seeing Austin grow within its core district. If it grows around its metro all the better.... but city proper never really tells the real picture in terms of how big the city truly is. If Austin went ahead and annexed all that area it surely wouldn't feel like a city of a million.

The ability of city to capture its suburban tax base has nothing to do with increasing the density of its core. Downtown Austin continues to densify regardless of what happens on its peripheral. The fact that Austin can do both is great. It is not an either/or. I wish more people would undetrstand that.

migol24 · #**8642** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 3:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The ability of city to capture its suburban tax base has nothing to do with increasing the density of its core. Downtown Austin continues to densify regardless of what happens on its peripheral. The fact that Austin can do both is great. It is not an either/or. I wish more people would undetrstand that.

I was just commenting on the population and how it didn't matter to me. My post wasn't meant to be taken with any seriousness. But yes I agree, if Austin can do both is great.

I just meant that the population in a city can be very misleading, i.e. Seattle vs San Antonio. San Antonio may be larger within its city proper... but Seattle still offers more in its metro. That's kinda where I'd prefer seeing Austin.

On another note.... what is the deal on that building that's west of the Seaholm district? Is it still planned?

BevoLJ · #**8643** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by migol24

I was just commenting on the population and how it didn't matter to me. My post wasn't meant to be taken with any seriousness. But yes I agree, if Austin can do both is great.

I just meant that the population in a city can be very misleading, i.e. Seattle vs San Antonio. San Antonio may be larger within its city proper... but Seattle still offers more in its metro. That's kinda where I'd prefer seeing Austin.

On another note.... what is the deal on that building that's west of the Seaholm district? Is it still planned?

While I do actually agree with your point, I think the two cities you chose might not be the best two. I think what San Antonio has to offer gets ignored on this forum quite often due to it not have the same kind of big business, modern urban sky scraper downtowns of many of the other cities that we love so much on here have. San Antonio often gets overshadowed by Houston and DFW, but it has a ton to offer for a city its size. Or hell it has a lot to offer for a city of any size. The great Tejano culture, to the history and all the missions, the Riverwalk and romance, all the parks like Sea World and such, the Hill Country, as well as tons of other great stuff in the city.

ahealy · #**8644** Posted **Apr 2, 2011, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

While I do actually agree with your point, I think the two cities you chose might not be the best two. I think what San Antonio has to offer gets ignored on this forum quite often due to it not have the same kind of big business, modern urban sky scraper downtowns of many of the other cities that we love so much on here have. San Antonio often gets overshadowed by Houston and DFW, but it has a ton to offer for a city its size. Or hell it has a lot to offer for a city of any size. The great Tejano culture, to the history and all the missions, the Riverwalk and romance, all the parks like Sea World and such, the Hill Country, as well as tons of other great stuff in the city.

^^True, but it is hell on earth. Born & raised...I can say that.

AusHou · #**8645** Posted **Apr 3, 2011, 2:56 AM**

I mistakenly thought this was an Austin thread.

Jdawgboy · #**8646** Posted **Apr 3, 2011, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

^^True, but it is hell on earth. Born & raised...I can say that.

Now that is funny, Love it...

AustinSkyscrapers · #**8647** Posted **Apr 3, 2011, 8:09 PM**

I used go on and post on SkyscraperPage, but now I don't really have the time to, which kind of sucks. The last time I was on here oftenly was in June of 2010. You might remember me as the 9 year old that posted lots of response bags and stuff on this particular thread so ya.

Well, yesterday I had to go to a Kealing Magnet School registration/open house session, so along the way, I took some pics. I hope you enjoy.

Pictures by AustinSkyscrapers

100 Congress:

West Austin CBD Waterfront Skyline:

W Austin Hotel and Residences:

Frost Bank Tower:

The Austonian:

I hope you enjoy these photos.

~You can easily tell I haven't been here oftenly, because if you look at my signature, Austonian is Austin's new tallest.

H2O · #**8648** Posted **Apr 3, 2011, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Seaholm Hotel & Condos. It looks like it's around 300 feet tall or so.

http://www.seaholm.info/

The zoning actually allows up to 393 feet. That doesn't mean it will be that tall. The controlling factor is the ability to provide enough parking for the market demand, not the zoning.

migol24 · #**8649** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O

The zoning actually allows up to 393 feet. That doesn't mean it will be that tall. The controlling factor is the ability to provide enough parking for the market demand, not the zoning.

why do you have to be such a party pooper??

KevinFromTexas · #**8650** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 5:23 PM**

Actually I was saying it looks like 300 feet or so. 393 feet would be a good bit taller. It's the difference between being barely inside the top 20 (shorter than the Capitol and UT Tower). 393 feet would make it the 9th tallest today. Four Seasons is 394.

AustinSkyscrapers · #**8651** Posted **Apr 4, 2011, 8:49 PM**

I agree with Kevin because using the general idea that floors for residential buildings are normally 13' tall, multiplying by 22 gives you 286 feet. Adding the base and all the rooftop design, I'd go for 300 feet.

Samwill89 · #**8652** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 5:13 PM**

Interesting data on population density in central Austin here. West Campus, the city's most urban neighborhood is now at over 25,000ppsm

wwmiv · #**8653** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samwill89

Interesting data on population density in central Austin here. West Campus, the city's most urban neighborhood is now at over 25,000ppsm

Great resource.

All following numbers are in PPSM (people per square mile).

Austin's densest tracts are West Campus (both above 25,000) and Campus (21,000), but other dense tracts include North Campus (10,000), North Lamar/Rundberg (10,000-12,000), East Riverside (10,000), East Stassney (10,000), and Greystone (10,000).

San Antonio's densest tract isn't anywhere near the core. The group of dense tracts in North Central vary between 5,000 and 10,500 (tract 191408, the highest for the region). The core maxes out at just above 10,000 (tract 1106), but is typically between 6,000 and 8,000.

Fort Worth's densest tracts are in Euless (11,500), Rosemont (10,000), Western Hills North (10,000). Arlington has three tracts over 10,000 (one which reaches 11,200). Other than that Fort Worth and Arlington's density rarely rises above the 5,000-6,000 level.

Dallas's densest tracts are found in Uptown, Oak Lawn, and Knox-Henderson where there are many tracts in the 10,000-12,000 range. One is actually just over 16,000. However, move to just northwest Love Field and you find tracts that are between 10,000 and 22,000. The absolute densest tract in Dallas is just outside of Greenville: 44,000. There are other tracts scattered about that range from 10,000 to 20,000. There's also a tract in Richardson that is at 33,000. The dense pockets of Dallas are usually very dense, tending to be closer to 10,000 than to 5,000.

El Paso's densest tract is South Central (12,000). There are a few tracts over 10,000 scattered in random pockets of density, but not many. Laredo has alot of dense tracts that are over 10,000, but its densest is at just over 12,000. There is only one tract in the entire valley over 10,000: just outside of downtown Brownsville.

In Houston, the intersection of Sam Houston and Westpark has a tract at 20,000 and a few more just beneath that, at Southwest and Westpark there are tracts at 55,000, 32,000, 24,000, 19,000, and 17,000 and a lot more just beneath that as well. There are many tracts between 10,000-15,000. Density here is very similar to density in Dallas, though with many more places of extreme density.

In summary, Austin has the densest area outside of Houston and Dallas. Is that a surprise? Not really. Although I would venture to say that because the densest areas of Dallas and Houston are urban ghettos without much street interaction and Austin's are places where pedestrian activity is encouraged, the feeling of density in Austin is more traditional.

Samwill89 · #**8654** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 6:48 PM**

Great summary. The most densely populated parts of other Texas cities to tend to be uninteresting and even dangerous at ground level, but that may change soon with the addition of rail service in those areas (mainly Gulfton in Houston).

I mentioned West Campus precisely because of the continuing explosive growth of the walkable sort, including a new residential tower under construction next to my condo. I am really hoping that East Central Austin, Riverside, and North Austin can develop in the same fashion. It really is a wonderful experience to live urban in central Austin at a barely affordable price. However, I would love to get away from the students. Thankfully, city leaders seem intent on making more areas of the city like this.

hookem · #**8655** Posted **Apr 5, 2011, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

In Houston, the intersection of Sam Houston and Westpark has a tract at 20,000 and a few more just beneath that, at Southwest and Westpark there are tracts at 55,000, 32,000, 24,000, 19,000, and 17,000 and a lot more just beneath that as well. There are many tracts between 10,000-15,000. Density here is very similar to density in Dallas, though with many more places of extreme density.

That 55K ppsm (Gulfton & Renwick) tract in Houston looks to be just one or two blocks with a ginormous 2 story apartment complex (maybe assisted living?) and about 3440 people total. It's so surprising that a 2 story apartment complex would have so many more residents than a 44 story condo tower in Austin... but it goes back to what urbanactivist pointed out in another thread. A unit in a lower income area might have a family of 3-5 living in a 2 bedroom... while something like the 360 tower might have 1-2 per unit max.

Darn poverty messing up our fancy urban density stats (I kid!).

MichaelB · #**8656** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Now that is funny, Love it...

OH LAUD! You boys are asking for trouble! LOL!

KevinFromTexas · #**8657** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 5:45 AM**

^Yeah, let's not.

ahealy · #**8658** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 7:30 AM**

lol...sorry. I meant no disrespect to any San Antonians.

MichaelB · #**8659** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

lol...sorry. I meant no disrespect to any San Antonians.

Is that kinda like.... Love the sinner, hate the sin?

...oooops

KevinFromTexas · #**8660** Posted **Apr 6, 2011, 9:37 PM**

Hey, I love the place, really. I was born there, too. The San Antonio/Austin flame wars have been going on for years. It's something I've tried to make go away. I don't like getting involved, because yeah, I was born there and love the place, but Austin is home. I try to treat the two with equal respect.

Anyway, as my dad's friend used to say when he wanted to change the subject using a quote from "Greater Tuna" - Let's talk about ducks.