AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III - Page 212

NYC_Longhorn · #**4221** Posted **Apr 15, 2015, 4:05 AM**

Reminds me of the SNL skit of the two adult film girls selling bubbly... "Luxury"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

"I guess ill sit in the corner and loath the building by myself Is
Is it luxury condos?"

It's marketed as ''luxury" - whatever that means - as is virtually every other condo and apartment project downtown or anywhere in the world apparently.

GoldenBoot · #**4222** Posted **Apr 15, 2015, 5:15 PM**

Interesting Forbes article re: amenities to ignore.

"9 Amenities Luxury Condo Buyers Should Ignore"

Hey Urbanspace, may want to rethink your marketing techniques?!?

Paul in S.A TX · #**4223** Posted **Apr 15, 2015, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

I hope they don't compromise that rendering on the final product. It looks awesome in that rendering.

Wow, very impressive.

The ATX · #**4224** Posted **Apr 19, 2015, 8:28 AM**

Here's Rev. 7 of my 2015 list of the tallest Austin projects that are at least 10-stories and/or 100'. There are 48 active projects on the list.

Projects completed so far in 2015 have a strikethrough, and will remain on the list for reference but not be counted in the total number of projects.

Projects that are highlighted are either U/C or underway with demolition/site prep and have financing in place. In other words, these projects are happening!

BevoLJ · #**4225** Posted **Apr 23, 2015, 11:41 PM**

Updated original post with the Hill Countries updated list. =)

Syndic · #**4226** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 1:49 AM**

New rendering from the (new?) video on The Independent's website:

drummer · #**4227** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 4:01 AM**

I like it. I think it'll look great!

Onn · #**4228** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 6:59 AM**

Very innovative design actually! Certainly adds a whole new dimension to the Austin skyline.

wwmiv · #**4229** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 9:00 AM**

Cross-posted to relevant threads:

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

KevinFromTexas · #**4230** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 5:37 PM**

^That's awesome. I'll have to bookmark it and refer to it.

wwmiv · #**4231** Posted **Apr 25, 2015, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinfromtexas

^that's awesome. I'll have to bookmark it and refer to it.

I'm in the process of adding the entirety of the most recent emerging projects poster to this map in a different layer. I plan on having different layers subdivided by primary usage and color coded by construction status. Within each of the projects descriptions I have links to the relevant threads here on SSP, if those exist.

KevinFromTexas · #**4232** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 1:35 AM**

Whoa, that sounds great. Keep us updated on the progress of it.

wwmiv · #**4233** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Whoa, that sounds great. Keep us updated on the progress of it.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

CVCs:

Medium Grey: City defined
Dark Grey: State defined
Light Grey: State modifications of City defined CVCs

Building Development:

Dark Blue: under construction
Medium Blue: planned
Light Blue: conceptual or district
Light Brown: recently or soon to be finished

Other Development:

Green: parkland developments or public art installations
White: road improvements

I've tried to include as many projects as I can possibly think of. I'd like to give editing access to you, Kevin, as well as Hill Country and BevoLJ, if y'all would like it.

Does anybody see projects I'm missing? I know there are some, but I'm not an encyclopedia.

wwmiv · #**4234** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 3:47 AM**

Can I just say how stupid some of our CVCs are?

CVC #29 protects the view from the Memorial practice field. Dumb.
CVC #30 protects the view from the UT swim center building entrance... Dumber.

There are multiple CVCs that protect NB views from Interstate 35. Dumb, if we want to sink the lanes.

There are multiple CVCs that are protected by both the state and city, but which have slightly distinct definitions. The state's definition of the MoPac bridge is much broader than the city's, and I think I prefer it. Same thing for Longhorn Shores. The city's definition of the Redbud Trail view is incoherently off-base and doesn't really protect anything. The state's is better. On the flip side, the state's Barton Creek Pedestrian Bridge definition is unneeded and the city's is much superior.

The ATX · #**4235** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Can I just say how stupid some of our CVCs are?

CVC #29 protects the view from the Memorial practice field. Dumb.
CVC #30 protects the view from the UT swim center building entrance... Dumber.

There are multiple CVCs that protect NB views from Interstate 35. Dumb, if we want to sink the lanes.

There are multiple CVCs that are protected by both the state and city, but which have slightly distinct definitions. The state's definition of the MoPac bridge is much broader than the city's, and I think I prefer it. Same thing for Longhorn Shores. The city's definition of the Redbud Trail view is incoherently off-base and doesn't really protect anything. The state's is better. On the flip side, the state's Barton Creek Pedestrian Bridge definition is unneeded and the city's is much superior.

I really hope that once all of surface parking lots and underutilized lots are built out that the city and state will revisit some of the CVCs like the ones you pointed out. But despite the amazing amount of tower construction going on, I think we are still a few years away from that. There are still a lot of underutilized parcels of land downtown.

wwmiv · #**4236** Posted **Apr 26, 2015, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

I really hope that once all of surface parking lots and underutilized lots are built out that the city and state will revisit some of the CVCs like the ones you pointed out. But despite the amazing amount of tower construction going on, I think we are still a few years away from that. There are still a lot of underutilized parcels of land downtown.

Agreed.

OtherKevin · #**4237** Posted **Apr 27, 2015, 7:31 PM**

Seaholm and GreenWater update

(click for larger image)

Syndic · #**4238** Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 1:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OtherKevin

Seaholm and GreenWater update

(click for larger image)

Lookin' good, OtherKevin. I can't wait until I start working down there next week.

Kotliz · #**4239** Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OtherKevin

Seaholm and GreenWater update

Thanks for posting such a large version of that view. Very impressive. A whole chunk of city going up at once.

ILUVSAT · #**4240** Posted **Apr 29, 2015, 9:26 PM**

And that "chunk" does not yet include Austin Proper Hotel & Residences, Block 185 (to the south of Austin Proper) or The Independent (whose sites are all in view).