AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[Jdawgboy]

I can't stand the Millinium project. Its ruining the character of Rainey Street. They could double or triple the height and have a much smaller footprint that wouldn't take out blocks of houses and close businesses like Lustra Pearl. But they don't care, they are doing the cheapest option and choose to raize 2 acres of land rather than help preserve what made Rainey Street a hip and popular area. I'm all about tall thin towers and this is exactly the reason why. It's the perfect example as to why taller is better for a number of reasons including environmental.

[ATXboom]

http://m.statesman.com/news/business/restaurants-envisioned-for-west-sixth-street-site/nfPTm/

2 story planned in open lot between 219 and star bar.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by bigdogc

corazon is insanely expensive for that area. Studios are going for like 1600 + 75/mo for parking!

$3.00 / square foot seems to be the new going rate anywhere near downtown, at least for smaller units.

[Syndic]

Re: Millennium Rainey, am I the only one who thinks that density and infill is more important than preserving some houses that have been turned into makeshift bars? Sure, the development doesn't have a lot of character, but it's big and it's urban housing and most of the land it's being built on was blight. Also, Austin is full of houses. In these changing times, it will be a true test of Austin's character to see if we can adapt and shift the weirdness to another neighborhood. The Rainey Street bungalow bar culture was never meant to be permanent. It was always a stopgap measure until some development came along. Sure, it would be nice if new development could incorporate these bars into their ground-floor retail, to preserve some of the culture that has developed (so that it's not a total loss), but aside from not being as aesthetically pleasing, Millennium isn't doing anything that Corazon isn't.

I agree that they could have as many apartments in a highrise and that that would be better but I guess I'm still in that mode where I'm grateful for almost any infill development we can get. Also, I think it will look pretty good from I-35.

I'm ready for Rainey Street to be a legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave. Obviously, we'll need a lot more development for that to happen but I think that's where we're headed.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Re: Millennium Rainey, am I the only one who thinks that density and infill is more important than preserving some houses that have been turned into makeshift bars? Sure, the development doesn't have a lot of character, but it's big and it's urban housing and most of the land it's being built on was blight. Also, Austin is full of houses. In these changing times, it will be a true test of Austin's character to see if we can adapt and shift the weirdness to another neighborhood. The Rainey Street bungalow bar culture was never meant to be permanent. It was always a stopgap measure until some development came along. Sure, it would be nice if new development could incorporate these bars into their ground-floor retail, to preserve some of the culture that has developed (so that it's not a total loss), but aside from not being as aesthetically pleasing, Millennium isn't doing anything that Corazon isn't.

I agree that they could have as many apartments in a highrise and that that would be better but I guess I'm still in that mode where I'm grateful for almost any infill development we can get. Also, I think it will look pretty good from I-35.

I'm ready for Rainey Street to be a legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave. Obviously, we'll need a lot more development for that to happen but I think that's where we're headed.

I pretty much agree with you. It would be nice to see a little slice of the current Rainey St. retained, but when they city changed zoning there 10 years or so ago, the intent was to encourage dense commercial and residential development. Most SSP forumers were very much in favor of some of the earlier proposals for the street that would have involved the wholesale removal of all the old bungalows to make way for large planned development. Those proposals never could get off the ground (lack of financing, unwillingness of some property owners to sell out, and poor timing due financial uncertainty in 2001 and again in 2008), so it was inevitable that some clever folks began to turn existing structures into bars and restaurants. Now some SSP forumers want to pretend the street has always been this trendy enclave, this iconic slice of Austin. That just is not even close to the truth. I think infill development that includes lots of housing is good for the area and will speed the creation of other development including a super market somewhere in the area. I think the planned nearby Waller Creek development might end up having a super market buried somewhere in its bowels. Just a hunch. I'd like to see Rainey St. become a real urban street offering housing, food, entertainment, and services in a very pedestrian friendly environment. It could end up being a delightful street.

[wwmiv]

What I'd like is to preserve the bungalows that we're able to preserve or refurbish and fill in the gaps with high rises. There are plenty of parcels that don't need to keep the house that is currently on them, but I'd prefer that this area go more with point towers nestled amongst the historic houses.

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Re: Millennium Rainey, am I the only one who thinks that density and infill is more important than preserving some houses that have been turned into makeshift bars? Sure, the development doesn't have a lot of character, but it's big and it's urban housing and most of the land it's being built on was blight. Also, Austin is full of houses. In these changing times, it will be a true test of Austin's character to see if we can adapt and shift the weirdness to another neighborhood. The Rainey Street bungalow bar culture was never meant to be permanent. It was always a stopgap measure until some development came along. Sure, it would be nice if new development could incorporate these bars into their ground-floor retail, to preserve some of the culture that has developed (so that it's not a total loss), but aside from not being as aesthetically pleasing, Millennium isn't doing anything that Corazon isn't.

I agree that they could have as many apartments in a highrise and that that would be better but I guess I'm still in that mode where I'm grateful for almost any infill development we can get. Also, I think it will look pretty good from I-35.

I'm ready for Rainey Street to be a legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave. Obviously, we'll need a lot more development for that to happen but I think that's where we're headed.

The problem with Millennium Rainey is just that it is godawful ugly! I do believe that Philadelphia has a huge area in Center City where there are rowhouses interspersed with funky bars and restaurants. How about the brownstones in Manhattan (like in the Village, and in many other places) that are interspersed with funky bars and delis and restaurants?
Oh, but Austin needs a "legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave." Am I missing something here?
Or are you trying to say that Austin does not need to preserve SOMETHING, anything, in downtown like the "trendy makeshift, stopgap enclaves" such as those in downtown Philadelphia and Manhattan? But I guess only Austin counts as a real "city", NOT New York and Philly?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

The problem with Millennium Rainey is just that it is godawful ugly! I do believe that Philadelphia has a huge area in Center City where there are rowhouses interspersed with funky bars and restaurants. How about the brownstones in Manhattan (like in the Village, and in many other places) that are interspersed with funky bars and delis and restaurants?
Oh, but Austin needs a "legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave." Am I missing something here?
Or are you trying to say that Austin does not need to preserve SOMETHING, anything, in downtown like the "trendy makeshift, stopgap enclaves" such as those in downtown Philadelphia and Manhattan? But I guess only Austin counts as a real "city", NOT New York and Philly?

Huh? Yes. I think you are missing a lot or perhaps most of what Syndic was trying to convey, but I'll let him respond. Here is what I think, however: If the Rainey St. bungalows ever had any real architectural integrity (and that is up for debate), the original buildings that remain have mostly been altered beyond recognition in their transformation from very humble homes into bars and restaurants. The quality of architecture in Rainey St. is not anything like Center City Philadelphia or Greenwich Village New York, not even close. Rainey St.'s main charm has to do with the tree canopy and width of the street as much as anything else. I do think that some streets in places like Philly or DC could serve as models for what Rainey St. could become in terms of the mix of residential, commercial, bars, restaurants, hotel, and retail both practical (geared towards servicing residents) and trendy. Keep in mind it is only a 3 block long stretch, so it is not reasonable to expect it to be all things to all people. The overall area, however, in that little corner of downtown, could morph into Austin's first truly urban residential enclave.

[The ATX]

Manhattan? Philly? Not the best counterpoint. It's kind of all over the place and you're putting words in Syndic's mouth, so to speak.

[NYC2ATX]

I think the main reason I'm not bemoaning the loss of the bungalow businesses on Rainey is basically a compound of things that have already been mentioned here, but incorporating one more major point.

Yes, the architectural/historic merit of the homes is debatable and yes, they have, in some cases, been massively altered and gutted. Yes, the vibe of the street is more about the energy and feel created by those bars and restaurants coupled with the dense tree canopy. ..and yes, the strip is zoned for dense mixed-use and fairly close to downtown, and specifically Waller Creek, which is poised to explode in the near future.

My reason for not being perturbed by this loss is that, quite simply, it's not a loss at all.

Unlike irreplaceable historical architecture and infrastructure that is either unfeasible or impossible to replicate, businesses (like the ones that lend Rainey its character) are mobile. Building scheduled for demolition? Move down the street. Rents going up? Move to a nearby neighborhood. Few businesses as young as those on Rainey can argue that the character of their building is what brings in the bucks, and those that would...well good news! Austin is full of bungalow-esque homes! Which is my point.

They're in every older district in the city, and I've seen businesses in them popping up elsewhere already. East Austin has them, Old West, South Lamar, South Congress, Hyde Park, etc. And these aren't just a two-block stretch...but much larger swaths of neighborhood that it would take more than a few redevelopment projects to eradicate. Rainey is cool because it's so concentrated, but that saturation can be replicated elsewhere, and likely will. Let Rainey Street contribute to a dense downtown, we've got the whole city to settle in some cool bars and restaurants.


P.S. the Millennium project really is not all that bad IMO, it's got a restaurant space, uses a nice variety of materials, and is no worse than half the new apartment blocks rising on every major street in the city. I'm pulling for the block bounded by Cesar Chavez/Red River/Driskill/East to score a more landmark development anyway. A sort of MetLife Building to Rainey's Park Avenue, if you will.

[IluvATX]

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 anyone? After polo, perhaps?

[Syndic]

^ implying Lustre Pearl, etc. isn't gentrification

[bigdogc]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Re: Millennium Rainey, am I the only one who thinks that density and infill is more important than preserving some houses that have been turned into makeshift bars? Sure, the development doesn't have a lot of character, but it's big and it's urban housing and most of the land it's being built on was blight. Also, Austin is full of houses. In these changing times, it will be a true test of Austin's character to see if we can adapt and shift the weirdness to another neighborhood. The Rainey Street bungalow bar culture was never meant to be permanent. It was always a stopgap measure until some development came along. Sure, it would be nice if new development could incorporate these bars into their ground-floor retail, to preserve some of the culture that has developed (so that it's not a total loss), but aside from not being as aesthetically pleasing, Millennium isn't doing anything that Corazon isn't.

I agree that they could have as many apartments in a highrise and that that would be better but I guess I'm still in that mode where I'm grateful for almost any infill development we can get. Also, I think it will look pretty good from I-35.

I'm ready for Rainey Street to be a legitimate and urban part of downtown, not some trendy makeshift, stopgap enclave. Obviously, we'll need a lot more development for that to happen but I think that's where we're headed.

Rainey St is now a destination area. People come here because you can bring your dog, sit outside, and go enjoy a beer from bar to bar (bungalow to bungalow).

There is a whole lot of NOTHING right behind Rainey St, on East avenue. Build there and you can have it both ways- urban density, but also retain what makes rainey district so enjoyable- the bungalows and bar/restaurants.

[Syndic]

This is building there, for the most part.

But, again, Rainey Street bungalows were never meant to exist or become permanent. It's unsustainable.

[MightyYoda]

I would like to see the bungalows kept where it doesn't make financial sense to build a highrise and/or moved to East Austin where the scale is more appropriate. The plus side to these places is they can all be moved to a new location and preserve the character.

[Jdawgboy]

Rainey Street is now CBD, that is absolutely right. I am not arguing that, but I fail to see how an 8 floor VMU that takes up 2 acres of land is CBD development appropriate. Point towers can bring in the same density without taking so much of a footprint.

Rainey Street is what it is today because of people with that Keep Austin Weird mentality transformed it into what it is. That is whats cool about it. I like that more residential is coming but would rather not see something that should be built along Lamar rather than in the CBD, especially if there are no height restrictions. Look at the footprint that the A-loft proposal covers. They could just build on one lot. Several of the lots on Rainey are the same size or larger than the corner of 7th and Congress. if they did that, then we could have the best of both worlds.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Syndic

^ implying Lustre Pearl, etc. isn't gentrification

The value of a city's downtown area has a lot to do with its culture. If we relocate Rainey street, we won't get its character back. I'm all for density and infill, but we have to be careful to preserve certain areas that keep Austin as vibrant as it is. Regarding gentrification, when you close local businesses for apartments with limited ground floor retail. That retail is almost always corporate owned eg. 7-Eleven, AT&T, etc. thus gentrification.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Rainey Street is now CBD, that is absolutely right. I am not arguing that, but I fail to see how an 8 floor VMU that takes up 2 acres of land is CBD development appropriate. Point towers can bring in the same density without taking so much of a footprint.

Rainey Street is what it is today because of people with that Keep Austin Weird mentality transformed it into what it is. That is whats cool about it. I like that more residential is coming but would rather not see something that should be built along Lamar rather than in the CBD, especially if there are no height restrictions. Look at the footprint that the A-loft proposal covers. They could just build on one lot. Several of the lots on Rainey are the same size or larger than the corner of 7th and Congress. if they did that, then we could have the best of both worlds.

I agree with you on this. It's just a case of a (Houston) developer sticking to what they know and not having the balls/ovaries to develop something different. Tis a shame, really, but it's more dense and better looking (from I-35, at least) than what's there now.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

I would like to see the bungalows kept where it doesn't make financial sense to build a highrise and/or moved to East Austin where the scale is more appropriate. The plus side to these places is they can all be moved to a new location and preserve the character.

Exactly. No one can deny they are out-of-place on Rainey Street.