Highland Mall Redevelopment Update Thread

[Digatisdi]

One thing that I may have completely miscalculated because I don't trust my math to save my life, is that with a planned population of 1,800 residents according to that brochure this part of town will have an average population density of 5487.8 people/km²

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

One thing that I may have completely miscalculated because I don't trust my math to save my life, is that with a planned population of 1,800 residents according to that brochure this part of town will have an average population density of 5487.8 people/km²

I get 5491 /km^2. But thereabouts, yes. For the whole 81 acre site.

Counting only permanent residents, not hotel guests. Total daytime population (including students, workers, etc.) looks to be 87k /sq km in total.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...3581740.735786

300 apartments planned for part of former Highland Mall site

Posted: 3:04 p.m. Tuesday, July 7, 2015

By Gary Dinges - American-Statesman Staff

Plans to remake the vast, empty parking lots surrounding the former Highland Mall into a bustling mixed-use project will start to take shape this fall when work begins on 300 new apartments.

The apartment complex will be on the south side of the property, which is now owned by Austin Community College. It should be complete by 2017, according to ACC and its development partner, RedLeaf Properties.

The buildings will be four and five stories tall, and will feature about 5,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space aimed at locally owned businesses. The retail space will help camouflage a parking garage for residents, Greystar said.

[drummer]

Very cool.

[JoninATX]

Mixed-Use Project Underway at ACC Highland Campus Redevelopment

Greystar new 300 apartment complex with ground floor retail U/C


Including a recent video taken over the site.
https://youtu.be/WvixlQpOqco

All thanks to BuildingATX!

http://www.buildingatx.com/2016/01/m...lopment-video/

[drummer]

Nice, I had no idea they were moving that quickly on all that.

[OfCourse]

Very nice.

[drummer]

The buildingatx.com article linked above also has a map of the proposed buildings around the former mall. Anyone have an idea on a timeline for the whole thing?

[corvairkeith]

The former Dillard's has been skinned and should look quite different once glass starts going up.






Rendering by Gensler

[wwmiv]

Super excited to see this area densify over time. This will help with rail numbers, too, once people start living there because VMUs start really going up.

Also, I really think the best strategy going forward is simply expanding the red line in conjunction with adding a downtown streetcar circulator and an equivalent amount of money in the same ballot package going to road projects. Add a few in-town red line stops (I'd add stops at Airport and Bruning and change development policy there toward VMU -- there'd be neighborhood support here, at Hancock Center, where there would also be neighborhood support for denser development there provided they got certain concessions, just north of Manor Road, and at 7th) and extend the red line west with three new stops (between Brazos and Congress, between Lavaca and Guadalupe, and a small terminal station at 4th and Rio Grande).

You'll have a greater impact on development policy that way. Which is really the main goal of rail lines, because new residential patterns fundamentally alter the way we interact with transportation infrastructure. It isn't always about gaining the most riders initially, it's about playing the long development game. The ridership numbers are only important politically, where future citizen support is conditional upon factors that citizens believe are normatively important (such as high ridership, which both the polity and elites believe is normatively important here). Yes, you may take some commuters and incidental trips off the roads, especially during peak hours, but the bigger goal is to shift the trajectory of road line mile usage per capita by changing development patterns throughout a city. So when you hear someone talk about ridership to the exclusion, they're either willfully ignoring the bigger picture because they recognize they have to play to what the voters want to hear (this variety is common among rail supporters), they're too stupid to recognize what's actually going on (people who are

And one of the central reasons why this is a good idea?

1. It increases future tax revenue because these new developments centered around rail stations are more taxable per square foot of land than any alternative use.
2. It decreases the total funds we have to spend relative to what we'd be spending if we just had to maintain our roads. The reason this is the case is because roads are more expensive to maintain over the long run. This is the proper comparison to maintenance costs, not the maintenance that we spend on buses.

Whenever someone says they prefer buses over rail, I always reply that they're making this a false either/or choice. What they're essentially saying is that they want cars to remain the dominant mode of transportation in American life, whether they happen to be a car with just you or you and many others.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Also, I really think the best strategy going forward is simply expanding the red line in conjunction with adding a downtown streetcar circulator and an equivalent amount of money in the same ballot package going to road projects. Add a few in-town red line stops (I'd add stops at Airport and Bruning and change development policy there toward VMU -- there'd be neighborhood support here, at Hancock Center, where there would also be neighborhood support for denser development there provided they got certain concessions, just north of Manor Road, and at 7th) and extend the red line west with three new stops (between Brazos and Congress, between Lavaca and Guadalupe, and a small terminal station at 4th and Rio Grande).

Just curious, why both a streetcar and extending the red line?

Extending the red line through downtown is very problematic. If you're doing a streetcar anyway (hopefully with exclusive lanes) it serves basically the same function (if you can run in frequently enough or time it to minimize the transfer penalty).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Just curious, why both a streetcar and extending the red line?

Extending the red line through downtown is very problematic. If you're doing a streetcar anyway (hopefully with exclusive lanes) it serves basically the same function (if you can run in frequently enough or time it to minimize the transfer penalty).

A streetcar oriented north south would not serve the same function. Extending the red line increases supply near actual employment density, thus stimulating demand for commuters. Adding other in-town stops builds political support where we have seemed to really need it where community leaders have withheld their support because of the lack of attention paid to their area (inner east).

I also think that is what is politically feasible in this city.

[nixcity]

^Most of what you have said here is good but building rail does not guarantee that the development will come (as some cities have seen) and you definitely don't want to do this for your starter line. It will eat up too much resources and leave nothing for future lines.

[QUOTEYou'll have a greater impact on development policy that way. Which is really the main goal of rail lines, because new residential patterns fundamentally alter the way we interact with transportation infrastructure. It isn't always about gaining the most riders initially, it's about playing the long development game. The ridership numbers are only important politically, where future citizen support is conditional upon factors that citizens believe are normatively important (such as high ridership, which both the polity and elites believe is normatively important here). Yes, you may take some commuters and incidental trips off the roads, especially during peak hours, but the bigger goal is to shift the trajectory of road line mile usage per capita by changing development patterns throughout a city. ][/QUOTE]

There has already been a long term development game in ATX: DT and West Campus have been built up to levels where they can support mass transit. Good rail could also help with traffic which is a huge problem here in Austin and has the ability to make many choice riders out of their cars and into the comfortable seats of rail. Ridership numbers do matter for that reason, more riders mean more potential people off the roads; this is HUGE in Austin, now more than ever. The other reason ridership numbers really matter, and even on day one, is because of cost. If we are forced to subsidize riders at a high cost than that means services would have to be cut in other places, something we can't afford to do.
Just for example; if you could vote on a $1 billion dollar line that has a ridership of 20,000 per day or one for the same price that gets 40,000 which one would you choose?

[wwmiv]

Before I actually respond, can you learn how to use the quote function properly?

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Most of what you have said here is good but building rail does not guarantee that the development will come (as some cities have seen) and you definitely don't want to do this for your starter line. It will eat up too much resources and leave nothing for future lines.

Agreed. But we're stuck with what we have, and we need to make the best of it. It's called path dependence.

Originally Posted by nixcity

There has already been a long term development game in ATX: DT and West Campus have been built up to levels where they can support mass transit.

Except political leaders mostly realize, properly, that that line is a non-starter as an initial alignment because it lacks citizen support.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Good rail could also help with traffic which is a huge problem here in Austin and has the ability to make many choice riders out of their cars and into the comfortable seats of rail. Ridership numbers do matter for that reason, more riders mean more potential people off the roads; this is HUGE in Austin, now more than ever.

Sure, and that's fine and dandy, but that's not the end all be all of rail and your argument (and novacek's argument, I might add) suffers analytically because of it. It may help some immediately, but really what matters is how it structures residential and transportation patterns in the future.

Originally Posted by nixcity

The other reason ridership numbers really matter, and even on day one, is because of cost. If we are forced to subsidize riders at a high cost than that means services would have to be cut in other places, something we can't afford to do. Just for example; if you could vote on a $1 billion dollar line that has a ridership of 20,000 per day or one for the same price that gets 40,000 which one would you choose?

Again, that's merely a political problem, not a substantive one.

I deliberately posted this here so as not to wade into the inane arguments about rail alignments that y'all have that completely miss the point about what the city is trying to accomplish here over in the transportation threads. I should have known better than to even think you all wouldn't notice the comment...

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

A streetcar oriented north south would not serve the same function. Extending the red line increases supply near actual employment density, thus stimulating demand for commuters.

Why would the streetcar necessarily be oriented N/S?

I've always envisioned something like a loop. From the existing Red Line terminus, run west along 4th to Lavaca(ideally in an exclusive lane). Run North on Lavaca in the existing transit lane to perhaps 11th. East on 11th, and then south on perhaps trinity.
Or some variation thereof, possibly counter-clockwise instead.

Running the FRA-controlled red line through the middle of downtown is just going to be really hard to accomplish.
Would you advocate for grade-separating it the whole way?

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Adding other in-town stops builds political support where we have seemed to really need it where community leaders have withheld their support because of the lack of attention paid to their area (inner east).

I'm favor of more red line stops.

I'd advocate for one on Anderson Lane or one just south of 183 (in that current mostly-industrial area). Note: This is one of the few times on this site I'm advocating for something that would actually benefit me personally.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

(and novacek's argument, I might add) suffers analytically because of it.

Huh? I've explicitly said that ridership isn't the one overriding design goal. Especially short-term ridership, given that we were planning a system that will be in place for 50-100 years.

Originally Posted by nixcity

The other reason ridership numbers really matter, and even on day one, is because of cost.

Except they just don't really.

Say the ridership difference between two proposals actually is 20k /day.

20k /day X say 250 days /year X $1 fare.

You can play with the numbers, and $1 fare is probably overly generous given passes, but say $5 Million /year.

And that's assuming 20k additional _riders_ a day doesn't add additional expenses (they do).

So ~1.5% of CapMetro's $~300M budget. It's just not enough to make a huge difference in the budget. Certainly not a reason to vote down a proposal and set things back for another 5-10 years.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why would the streetcar necessarily be oriented N/S?

I've always envisioned something like a loop. From the existing Red Line terminus, run west along 4th to Lavaca(ideally in an exclusive lane). Run North on Lavaca in the existing transit lane to perhaps 11th. East on 11th, and then south on perhaps trinity.
Or some variation thereof, possibly counter-clockwise instead.

Running the FRA-controlled red line through the middle of downtown is just going to be really hard to accomplish.
Would you advocate for grade-separating it the whole way?




I'm favor of more red line stops.

I'd advocate for one on Anderson Lane or one just south of 183 (in that current mostly-industrial area). Note: This is one of the few times on this site I'm advocating for something that would actually benefit me personally.

I'd be in favor of another commuter station at 183 and if we could couple Anderson with VMU development around that station, I'd prefer the station there. Yes. Agreed.

And no, just have a dedicated lane to one side of the ROW with enough double tracked segments to ensure frequency.

[nixcity]

^There is a tricky spot there near Seaholm due to lost land of the city, but it has already been shown that it is still possible to get there.

[nixcity]

Except political leaders mostly realize, properly, that that line is a non-starter as an initial alignment because it lacks citizen support.

Sorry if my quotes don't always come out right, I usually have to answer super quick.
I think that G/L is the only place that will have citizen support. In Project Connect's surveys the people overwhelmingly always chose G/L. I'll eat all my words if either COA or Capmetro doesn't choose that route sometime in the next 4 years. Also, with strategically planned end points we have a corridor that basically parallels IH35.
Novacek, even if it were only a difference of $5 million a year, that is money that could be spent serving more people.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Super excited to see this area densify over time. This will help with rail numbers, too, once people start living there because VMUs start really going up.

Also, I really think the best strategy going forward is simply expanding the red line in conjunction with adding a downtown streetcar circulator and an equivalent amount of money in the same ballot package going to road projects. Add a few in-town red line stops (I'd add stops at Airport and Bruning and change development policy there toward VMU -- there'd be neighborhood support here, at Hancock Center, where there would also be neighborhood support for denser development there provided they got certain concessions, just north of Manor Road, and at 7th) and extend the red line west with three new stops (between Brazos and Congress, between Lavaca and Guadalupe, and a small terminal station at 4th and Rio Grande).

You'll have a greater impact on development policy that way. Which is really the main goal of rail lines, because new residential patterns fundamentally alter the way we interact with transportation infrastructure. It isn't always about gaining the most riders initially, it's about playing the long development game. The ridership numbers are only important politically, where future citizen support is conditional upon factors that citizens believe are normatively important (such as high ridership, which both the polity and elites believe is normatively important here). Yes, you may take some commuters and incidental trips off the roads, especially during peak hours, but the bigger goal is to shift the trajectory of road line mile usage per capita by changing development patterns throughout a city. So when you hear someone talk about ridership to the exclusion, they're either willfully ignoring the bigger picture because they recognize they have to play to what the voters want to hear (this variety is common among rail supporters), they're too stupid to recognize what's actually going on (people who are

And one of the central reasons why this is a good idea?

1. It increases future tax revenue because these new developments centered around rail stations are more taxable per square foot of land than any alternative use.
2. It decreases the total funds we have to spend relative to what we'd be spending if we just had to maintain our roads. The reason this is the case is because roads are more expensive to maintain over the long run. This is the proper comparison to maintenance costs, not the maintenance that we spend on buses.

Whenever someone says they prefer buses over rail, I always reply that they're making this a false either/or choice. What they're essentially saying is that they want cars to remain the dominant mode of transportation in American life, whether they happen to be a car with just you or you and many others.

I'm generally in agreement on this, but as Novacek pointed out later, running the current Metrorail vehicles across Downtown is problematic. They are also a problem for the extra stop spacing because the vehicles do not brake and accelerate as fast as light rail, and the signal system does not work well with short stop spacing. CapMetro has struggled with the signals between Crestview and Highland Stations from day one.

If the Red Line were to be upgraded to electric light rail, at least between Braker Station and Downtown, I think what you are suggesting would work well. That would require additional tracking to completely separate freight from passenger rail, as well as electrification, and new vehicles, so it would not be inexpensive.

One advantage to this scenario is that the current Metrorail vehicles could be repurposed for the Green Line, which would probably need to terminate at the Y in East Austin and transfer to light rail into Downtown.

Light rail vehicles could also navigate the tight 90 degree turns into the Seaholm District that the Metrorail vehicles cannot.