AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[KevinFromTexas]

Traffic on Barton Springs can — sometimes, though. There are events at the Long and Palmer Event Centers and then the residue traffic from the Trail of Lights and other big events at Zilker Park. Barton Springs would pretty much have to be walkable at least some of the time, otherwise, it wouldn't be fun getting in and out of there at times. The exit strategy for a lot of the residents of that building would probably be Dawson Road back into the neighborhood to find their way to either South First or Lamar.

[The ATX]

I'm intrigued about what the Hilton Hotel project with the 140' crane could be in my previous post with the FAA link. The "212 Riverside" description in the filing and the map with the location doesn't make sense. It shows the project as being well east of 212 Riverside and not directly on Riverside:




Google maps has a little trouble with addresses on E. Riverside. But based on the addresses of local businesses, 212 Riverside would be TxDot's offices between Thom's Market and the Water Marq apartments. I seriously doubt TxDot is moving any time soon.

[We vs us]

I'm interested in this, too. I haven't heard anything at all about this, and usually there'd be chatter about a 10 story Hilton going up anywhere near DT.

My guess is that it's a 1) limited service property (Homewood Suites, or a Hampton, etc) and 2) that it's somewhere near the Oracle campus. Alternatively, it could be an addition to the cluster of hotels on East Riverside and Ben White, out by the airport.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I'm intrigued about what the Hilton Hotel project with the 140' crane could be in my previous post with the FAA link. The "212 Riverside" description in the filing and the map with the location doesn't make sense. It shows the project as being well east of 212 Riverside and not directly on Riverside:




Google maps has a little trouble with addresses on E. Riverside. But based on the addresses of local businesses, 212 Riverside would be TxDot's offices between Thom's Market and the Water Marq apartments. I seriously doubt TxDot is moving any time soon.

The leases on the three buildings #118, 150, and 200) run out between 2022 and 2026 and TxDOT will vacate.

[KevinFromTexas]

I would imagine there would be some pretty major nimby opposition here based on the view of downtown from Travis Heights.

I don't care what kind of height we get there, whatever replaces those horrible state office stumps had better contribute to the street life better than they do. Although, that section of Riverside is sort of doomed as far as pedestrian friendliness goes since people exiting I-35 are still zipping along pretty fast through there.

[The ATX]

I suspect the map in the FAA Hilton tower crane filing is a mistake. If there is a new Hilton going up anywhere on Riverside, there should also be a separate filing just for the building in the very near future. Also, building permits are usually - but not always - filed before the FAA filings.

[The ATX]

Here's the site plan for the Nine in west campus. It's 8 floors above ground, and comes in at around 90'. The elevations begin on page 25.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/AULC...at%20Austin%202518%20Leon%20St_PLANS.pdf

[Urbannizer]

316 W. 12th Street


Untitled by Darius Fontenette, on Flickr

[wwmiv]

That's gonna look so much better when the renovation is finished.

http://westviewaustin.com/amenities/

[The ATX]

We're getting a new Waffle House! It's in North Austin.

Site Plan:
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/p...=11671512&t_selected_propertyrsn=5392834

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

We're getting a new Waffle House! It's in North Austin.

Site Plan:
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/permit/p...=11671512&t_selected_propertyrsn=5392834

On the one hand, I love Waffle House. On the other, Waffle Houses are often associated with crime and drugs.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

On the one hand, I love Waffle House. On the other, Waffle Houses are often associated with crime and drugs.

My brother and I worked in Florida cleaning up after Hurricane Ivan, and the Waffle House and Bait and Tackle shop we visited on the weekend was probably the most wholesome places we could find. Every night on our walk to the Whataburger and grocery store it was a constant barrage of questions wanting to know if we wanted to buy something. There were kids probably 14 years old selling drugs outside of the convenience store. Going to the Waffle House was sort of the high point of our week before we'd go fishing. lol

[The ATX]

One more post about the mystery 212 Riverside Hilton Hotel project with the 140' crane per the FAA filing...

My last post showed a Streetview shot of 212 E. Riverside which is currently TxDot's offices. But 212 W. Riverside is the backside of the parking garage for the Hilton Embassy Suites. A closed sports bar is adjacent to the parking garage on Riverside. Assuming the address is correct and the FAA map is wrong, this could be the site of a Hilton project.





But assuming the address is wrong and the FAA map and coordinates are correct, the Hilton project is at this site on E. Riverside that was for sale in this Streetview shot. The lot goes up hill to Willow Hill Dr. which is why the site appears off of Riverside in the FAA map.

From Riverside:



From Willow Hill:

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by The ATX

One more post about the mystery 212 Riverside Hilton Hotel project with the 140' crane per the FAA filing...

My last post showed a Streetview shot of 212 E. Riverside which is currently TxDot's offices. But 212 W. Riverside is the backside of the parking garage for the Hilton Embassy Suites. A closed sports bar is adjacent to the parking garage on Riverside. Assuming the address is correct and the FAA map is wrong, this could be the site of a Hilton project.

Looks like it could be TxDOT after all:

"TxDOT CFO Brian Ragland to Lege comm: agency will have to vacate leased buildings on East Riverside by 2022. Lease ending, land valuable"

https://twitter.com/bwear/status/831188919295291392

[Urbannizer]

Celia's Court


Untitled by Darius Fontenette, on Flickr

[lzppjb]

Yeti Cooler Headquarters and bar coming to South Congress & Barton Springs.

http://spirits.blog.austin360.com/2017/0...th-congress-coming-soon-will-have-a-bar/

The store with Yeti wares, at 220 S. Congress Ave., is part of the South Central Waterfront Plan, a multi-year effort to revitalize older buildings and empty lots along Lady Bird Lake’s south-central shore, in the hopes that the area will become a vibrant destination for both Austinites and tourists.

Yeti’s flagship store will certainly help with that once it opens later this winter. The company, which sells coolers, premium drinkware and other branded gear, told the American-Statesman in November that it will “be a place for the community to gather for various events, such as concerts and film screenings,” in addition to a store. And at the Barrrr, visitors will be able to order cold drinks while they watch sports games on TV.

[Urbannizer]

City Council considers expanding Capitol view corridors in East Austin

A proposal from Austin City Council Member Ora Houston could dramatically affect the redevelopment of East Austin by imposing new height restrictions on future projects to protect certain views of the state Capitol.

Houston’s proposal for five new Capitol view corridors comes as developers increasingly eye East Austin for high-rise development, fueling fears about further change in this once-working class part of town.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-go...dors-east-austin/AmMaam4XUYzDxGPgDQSUbK/

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

City Council considers expanding Capitol view corridors in East Austin



http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-go...dors-east-austin/AmMaam4XUYzDxGPgDQSUbK/

What a B.S. ploy. It's 100% meant for stopping development - not protecting any significant views.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by The ATX

What a B.S. ploy. It's 100% meant for stopping development - not protecting any significant views.

The incredible irony here is that this kind of — only serves to REDUCE affordability by making certain plots of land artificially more expensive to develop by diminishing the overall supply.

[wwmiv]

Ooooooo. This is a big opportunity, actually, if played right by supporters of density. If I were a smart councilperson, I would help to broker a compromise where we increase height allowance significantly outside of these new CVCs within certain "districts", including the industrial area out by 183. The one that blocks the Brackenridge site, however, can promptly get trashed.

I'd like to see a color gradient map of land use inside all CVCs showing the degree to which each legal parcel is vertically maxed given the CVC(s) each is under. From black (one story) to red (maxed out). I'd also include two opacity levels, where the darker opacity is where the legal parcel's height restriction is governed by the CVC(s) it is under (I.E. that the height restriction from that ordinance is the lowest) and a lighter opacity where the legal parcel's height restriction is governed by some other regulation (I.E. some other regulation has a lower height on that parcel).

I'd also then like to see a map of all land outside of CVCs which would be equivalent to the lighter opacity under the CVCs. In other words, how much is that land currently vertically maxed given whatever height restriction currently exists either directly or indirectly by substantive effect of a statute (for instance, the ratio system Austin uses).

Then, I'd add one other detail to both maps: I'd have thick borders around any legal parcel which has been redeveloped over the last 10 years, because those parcels aren't likely to see any improvements over the near and medium terms.

This would be incredibly useful in actually assessing the development impact of CVCs. If generally we're maxed out under our current height restrictions (I.E. mostly red parcels or parcels outlined in black), regardless whether the operating restriction is from a CVC or not (I.E. across both maps), then I'd oppose new CVCs generally. If we're maxed out underneath the CVCs but not everywhere else downtown generally, then work for a good compromise by calling your city councilperson. But if we're maxing out elsewhere, but NOT underneath the CVCs, this suggests the policy is altogether unwise because it would suggest that the underlying relationship between the CVCs and development is one where CVCs discourage development underneath the CVC altogether because it creates conditions where business perceives uncertainty in government policy on that land.