Austin | 305 S. Congress | 6 Towers - 215'/295'/365'/375'/445'/525' | Proposed

[wwmiv]

Let us all remind each other of the full potential of this area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

If there were another east/west connection with a real signature bridge here and meaningful connective integration with an expanded East Avenue between there and to (and with) I-35? OMG that'd be amazing. It'll never happen, though.

[lzppjb]

Love the idea of a Cummings Street bridge.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Love the idea of a Cummings Street bridge.

Right? That would serve so many transportation interests if tied into a broader I-35 connection framework via East Avenue. It would alleviate Cesar Chavez at Rainey. It would alleviate traffic on Riverside. It would provide more access east/west generally. It would make getting into and out of Rainey significantly easier. There are so many plusses here.

I'd totally have it be two lanes in each direction with some signature arch design with architectural flair with lighting at night and a large pedestrian component and have it directly connected thru to interstate 35 as two lanes in each direction with some ingenious intersection configuration at the interstate itself to account for the elevation of the preexisting configuration (such as a roundabout from northbound I-35 to westbound East Avenue underneath the highway).

[KevinFromTexas]

That would be awesome.

[AustinGoesVertical]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Let us all remind each other of the full potential of this area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

If there were another east/west connection with a real signature bridge here and meaningful connective integration with an expanded East Avenue between there and to (and with) I-35? OMG that'd be amazing. It'll never happen, though.

Wow. I'm sold. This would be incredible and for it to be a signature bridge would be an even bigger plus. This area has so much potential. I like the idea of Crystal Lagoons being there, but then again to have it be more of an extended grid would be ideal as well.

What I'd love to see is mixed used density, with as always, some height. I imagine a point tower right near the waterfront that's sort of a balancing focal point with the Austonian. Even if the rest of the towers are 20-40 stories or midrises, I'd like to see a signature tower out of this. Whatever they do, I hope it's interesting. If this land is just divided up into spec office, like 8 or so 5th and Colorado type towers (15-20 stories), I'll be really disappointed.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Let us all remind each other of the full potential of this area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

If there were another east/west connection with a real signature bridge here and meaningful connective integration with an expanded East Avenue between there and to (and with) I-35? OMG that'd be amazing. It'll never happen, though.

I agree with everything here - including (sadly) the part that it'll never happen. At least not any time soon. I'm sure MACC would have a field day with that, by the way, haha...boxed in by two bridges (in their eyes). Of course, one of the two, to appease them, could be designed with the Hispanic culture in mind? I think that'd be kinda cool, actually.

That said, I do love the idea of establishing a significant grid there, and if that's done further connectivity (if anything else, a wide bike/pedestrian bridge) would do wonders. I think there would need to be another vehicular bridge, though...at least one.

[drummer]

Interesting:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/facebook-comments-feb-14-2016/nqMYs/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by AustinGoesVertical

Wow. I'm sold. This would be incredible and for it to be a signature bridge would be an even bigger plus. This area has so much potential. I like the idea of Crystal Lagoons being there, but then again to have it be more of an extended grid would be ideal as well.

What I'd love to see is mixed used density, with as always, some height. I imagine a point tower right near the waterfront that's sort of a balancing focal point with the Austonian. Even if the rest of the towers are 20-40 stories or midrises, I'd like to see a signature tower out of this. Whatever they do, I hope it's interesting. If this land is just divided up into spec office, like 8 or so 5th and Colorado type towers (15-20 stories), I'll be really disappointed.

It'll be VMU. I doubt anything more than 15 stories. There's also that Austin has historically disliked taller structures closer to the waterfront, and although idk if this area is zoned in that way, but I doubt anything tall is gonna get build net to the water.

Personally, I actually like the height requirement stepping back away from the river where they already exist and, if they don't already apply here they should.

[wwmiv]

Note: I've revamped that google map with a lot more detail. Make sure you click on the overlays, I always include descriptions of what I'd do and usually why.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Note: I've revamped that google map with a lot more detail. Make sure you click on the overlays, I always include descriptions of what I'd do and usually why.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

I've always imagined something closer to the Domain in terms of walkability and ground floor retail throughout, except with 12+ story buildings at every single block. I would also hope for a mix of residential and commercial. I'd also love for there to finally be some proper high density micro-apartments in the 300sqft range with lots of built-in storage + a murphy bed.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

I've always imagined something closer to the Domain in terms of walkability and ground floor retail throughout, except with 12+ story buildings at every single block. I would also hope for a mix of residential and commercial. I'd also love for there to finally be some proper high density micro-apartments in the 300sqft range with lots of built-in storage + a murphy bed.

Well, as much as a bunch of 12 story buildings would be nice, I doubt that that'll ever happen here.

I'd also fuck around with Hancock Center, use eminent domain and build the streetcar right through the middle and then use that as a neighborhood center redevelopment opportunity a la north Austin's answer to Lamar Union with a nice plaza integrated into a rail stop in the middle.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Note: I've revamped that google map with a lot more detail. Make sure you click on the overlays, I always include descriptions of what I'd do and usually why.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zg4Z2wP-RFlA.kuRLdCQbYdVM&usp=sharing

That map is restricted, my access was denied.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business...ink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral

City vision for lakefront: More parkland, more tall buildings

By Shonda Novak - American-Statesman Staff

Posted: 10:35 a.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Under one scenario of the city of Austin’s latest vision for the south side of Lady Bird Lake, a water-color image depicts a vibrant “green urban” area — but also a hefty cluster of high-rise towers that could be taller than anything currently along that side of the shore.

This morning, the Austin City Council was briefed by city planner Alan Holt, who for more than three years has been laying the groundwork for that vision — called the South Central Waterfront Initiative — to become a reality. At least one neighborhood representative is voicing concern that the plan could usher in ever-taller buildings across Lady Bird Lake from downtown.

If adopted by the City Council, the plan will set expectations on community benefits and give the city a basis for negotiating with the private land owners in any future zoning cases involving their properties, Holt said.

The city wants to work with the land owners to balance the intensity of development on their land with the city’s desire to gain significant public benefits within the district, such as affordable housing; additional open space and parkland; enhanced connections to and along the waterfront and hike-and-bike trail; and a unified street network.

[wwmiv]

hmm. I can't figure out why...

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/business...ink_referralbox_free-to-premium-referral

How do they know the neighborhood doesn't want there to be additional height? I believe that the "old" guard homeowners would most likely be opposed (probably to ANY development), but I'd wager that if you took a vote of ALL the stakeholders (renters, businesses, etc) you would have a ton of support. All the people I know that live in '04 live there because of the all the development, not in-spite of it.

[KevinFromTexas]

That area now is a disgrace to the waterfront. Stubby state office buildings surrounded by acres of parking lots fronting the water is probably not what Lady Bird Johnson had in mind. And I can think we can do better than the low density businesses that are there that, despite being in a place where people should be enjoying, are not the type of business that attracts visitors there since they aren't anything special that you couldn't find anywhere else in the metro.

[drummer]

This development would enhance everything that is great about the riverfront, the hike and bike trail, the mix-used availability that enables *more* people to enjoy what Austin has to offer. I think Dcbrickley has a point - most folks I know who still live in the Austin area love the growth. They hate the traffic, but they love what is happening in Austin. Some of the older folks are opposed to it, of course, but I can understand that - all the more reason for compromise rather than one side having all the say (i.e., no development at all vs. go crazy and never look back). It doesn't have to be black or white. I'm all for this development, personally. I think it'll be great if they do it right.

[futures]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

How do they know the neighborhood doesn't want there to be additional height? I believe that the "old" guard homeowners would most likely be opposed (probably to ANY development), but I'd wager that if you took a vote of ALL the stakeholders (renters, businesses, etc) you would have a ton of support. All the people I know that live in '04 live there because of the all the development, not in-spite of it.

You hit the nail on the head. I moved from out of town to 78704 a few years ago specifically because of all the new development in the area (and of course the proximity to downtown and town lake).

I would wager that this development will be met with overwhelming support. The area now is an eyesore at best. Hideous government buildings, Statesman, and a failed strip club. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone looking to preserve any of that even if the new development isn't exactly their own vision.

This can't happen soon enough. It's some of the best real estate in Austin, and I'm glad people have the forethought to plan out and create visions for the area. I'd personally love to see a world class museum in the area.

[wwmiv]

The new park is the political cleavage issue among NIMBYs which will allow this plan to get broad public support.

[_Matt]

This would be amazing. Love the park idea.