AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[venshard]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

South Congress as a moniker is a specific area, we're talking about a different area of the very long street that is further south. Ergo, "deep south" mentioned above which I think is funny and cute.

Ah, okay. I thought we were referring to the same area south of Ben White? I consider the area between Riverside and 271 to be SoCo, but I see now there is a distinction once you go further south. I'm not from Austin, I just visit often so I don't know the neighborhood boundaries all that well. Either way, I like "deep south" and "LoCo" as well.

[austlar1]

I also kind of like Deep SOCO.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by venshard

ah, okay. I thought we were referring to the same area south of ben white? I consider the area between riverside and 271 to be soco, but i see now there is a distinction once you go further south. I'm not from austin, i just visit often so i don't know the neighborhood boundaries all that well. Either way, i like "deep south" and "loco" as well.

271?

East Bouldin Creek to Oltorf is generally understood as the boundaries of SoCo, but with the more urban character confined to Academy thru Live Oak with the more intense development of that character placed more northerly toward the river and downtown within that stretch.

Google maps got this wrong if you're deriving what SoCo is based on clicking "South Congress" on the map and watching the red square appear.

North of E. Bouldin Creek is South Central Waterfront, which is what the city and developers and media have coined the area around the Statesman property. I'm sure it'll end up just being called the South Waterfront district. SoWa? Austin loves its NYC knock off monickers.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

271?

275?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_...ghway_Loop_275

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

275?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_...ghway_Loop_275

I was ribbing him.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

East Bouldin Creek to Oltorf is generally understood as the boundaries of SoCo, but with the more urban character confined to Academy thru Live Oak with the more intense development or that character placed more northerly toward the river and downtown within that stretch.

Yep. Totally agree with this.

[lzppjb]

I'd say Deep South Congress is Stassney (or William Cannon) to Slaughter.

[wwmiv]

I think the next urban district should generally be understood as from Woodward to Williamson Creek. Whatever it ends up getting referred to in the vernacular has yet to be determined, but that's pretty much the boundaries of where that urban growth will be focused.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I think the next urban district should generally be understood as from Woodward to Williamson Creek. Whatever it ends up getting referred to in the vernacular has yet to be determined, but that's pretty much the boundaries of where that urban growth will be focused.

I agree with that.

Development is moving from both directions on S Congress. The area you're talking about from the north, and the HEB development from the south. The Austin Area Food Bank is moving out of its building between those two areas. But a lot of the other lots are salvage yards. Not sure what would need to be done to redevelop them with all the years of oil leaked into the ground.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by Tech House

That's a pithy and intelligent come-back, which kind of demolishes my argument. Nicely done. I had honestly never thought of it that way, but I do believe you're right, except in the unlikely event that it would be turned into some sort of public use other than golf.

Now, here's where I also discover that I elevate botanical gardens above golf courses in my valuation of public property uses. I had not thought of this, either, but it may possibly be the case that a botanical garden is just as 'elitist' as a golf course. So I simply have to confess that I place no value on golf courses, and I place the highest value on botanical gardens and museums and such. Why? Because I grew up in an upper-middle class family in Santa Barbara, a rarified environment that breeds snobbish little piggies like myself.

Regarding the new developments on South Congress (south of Ben White, does that have a specific name, like SoBe? SoSoCo? ConSoBe? [Congress South of Ben White]) --- that area is taking off in amazing ways, and it's the opposite side of the city from where I live so I'm jelly. Jealous, that is. Really cool developments, nice to see, and a refreshing respite from the regular news of generic new VMU developments.

Austin Botanical Garden is super cheap and amazing. It is also free if you get membership to Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower center. That should really be in its own category along with parks and greenbelts.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I also kind of like Deep SOCO.

Yup, it's sexy and groooovy. I can hear those house beats now.

One thing about these designations for neighborhoods is that I've never heard anyone use them in speech, they're only used in writing. I mean, how the hell do you even pronounce "SoFi?" And yet it's used in some articles. Mostly I think these designations are the stuff of boosters and real estate agents, and especially publications like Culturemap.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by MightyYoda

Austin Botanical Garden is super cheap and amazing. It is also free if you get membership to Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower center. That should really be in its own category along with parks and greenbelts.

They do have a neat piece of land with nice terrain, and they've made the most of it. I have to shut down my tendency to compare it to botanical gardens in other cities. After all, this is Texas, and I know from experience that it's difficult to garden here. The weather extremes are punishing. For example, you've probably noticed that there's a ceiling to tree height here, except in low-lying protected areas. I'm assuming this is caused by the twin forces of frequent extreme blasts of wind that rip branches off trees, and frequent spells of hot, dry weather that tax a tree's capacity to deliver water to its uppermost leaves. But the amazing thing is that the tree canopy is drop-dead gorgeous from below, with the incredible twists and turns of massive branches that have survived every kind of weather that Texas can throw at them. They're an inspiration --- hang in there during tough times, the more life throws at you, the better you look.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by We vs us

He's got a great massing of Third and Shoal in this update, and it got me thinking . . . has anyone seen a massing that places ALL of the buildings in the Green Water/Seaholm redevelopment in a single pic? Still feel like I'm not grasping the entirety of that cluster . . . .

Finally was able to answer my own question -- Austin Proper has a much better pic, though I'd love to see the Independent in there, too, somehow.

[resansom]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Finally was able to answer my own question -- Austin Proper has a much better pic, though I'd love to see the Independent in there, too, somehow.

That's a great massing/rendering. It does beg the question about why the heights of those buildings are all so similar (talk about a "plateau" effect). Is it FAR zoning or some other city ordinance that is limiting the heights or is that something the developer/developers is/are doing, on purpose?

Don't get me wrong - I love the density. I just would have loved to see at least a little more variation in height in that cluster, that's all.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by resansom

That's a great massing/rendering. It does beg the question about why the heights of those buildings are all so similar (talk about a "plateau" effect). Is it FAR zoning or some other city ordinance that is limiting the heights or is that something the developer/developers is/are doing, on purpose?

Don't get me wrong - I love the density. I just would have loved to see at least a little more variation in height in that cluster, that's all.

Not in this case (re: FAR's). What limits heights in this area are setback requirements from the lake and creek.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by resansom

Don't get me wrong - I love the density. I just would have loved to see at least a little more variation in height in that cluster, that's all.

Agreed. Though it also points up how similar the buildings all are -- not just in height but in geometry. Lots of blockiness clustered right there, IMO.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Finally was able to answer my own question -- Austin Proper has a much better pic, though I'd love to see the Independent in there, too, somehow.

The Independent...If they shifted the image to the left a bit, you might see the edge of it.

[SkyPie]

It's pretty remarkable when you step back and think about what this whole area was like in the late 90's. Cesar Chavez west of San Antonio felt like nothing more than a very long Mopac on-ramp back then.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Tech House

They do have a neat piece of land with nice terrain, and they've made the most of it. I have to shut down my tendency to compare it to botanical gardens in other cities. After all, this is Texas, and I know from experience that it's difficult to garden here. The weather extremes are punishing. For example, you've probably noticed that there's a ceiling to tree height here, except in low-lying protected areas. I'm assuming this is caused by the twin forces of frequent extreme blasts of wind that rip branches off trees, and frequent spells of hot, dry weather that tax a tree's capacity to deliver water to its uppermost leaves. But the amazing thing is that the tree canopy is drop-dead gorgeous from below, with the incredible twists and turns of massive branches that have survived every kind of weather that Texas can throw at them. They're an inspiration --- hang in there during tough times, the more life throws at you, the better you look.

The cap on tree height is mostly due to how deep the soil is before reaching solid rock. As you pointed out in lower areas and valleys the trees are taller and while it helps to be lower since rainwater flows into the lowest spots, the soil is also deeper and richer in those areas. Same thing in the hills, the trees are stubbier higher up but millions of years of erosion have made the valleys much more fertile with deeper soils. When you head into eastern Travis County the trees are taller than the central and western half due to deeper soils. There's also more sandy loam mixed between strips of Blackland Praire Clay.


Regarding Green, I've said it many times before that I wished there was more height variation as well as a wider mix of designs but compared to what was there before I'm pretty content. There may be just enough of a difference between the rooflines of each building that it won't look as plateuish as I origionally thought going by how the Google office building which is nearly topped out looks with Northshore.

[drummer]

^ The plateau effect will also be diminished if the materials are different - different textures, etc. If they were all the same blue glass with the same architectural style, it would be fairly boring.