AUSTIN | Lambie Cove Residential | Feet? | Floors? | Never Built

[The ATX]

The Planning Commission staff is recommending approval of the right of way vacations. But the Planning Commission vote was postponed by the neighborhood until January 26th. I hope this one along with 48 East and 70 Rainey get done. They will really fill in a gap in the skyline.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Planning Commission staff is recommending approval of the right of way vacations. But the Planning Commission vote was postponed by the neighborhood until January 26th. I hope this one along with 48 East and 70 Rainey get done. They will really fill in a gap in the skyline.

It will be pretty cool one day when one can stand on the Congress Ave bridge, look left...look right, and see pretty much contiguous skyline from the Lamar bridge all the way to the I-35 bridge.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by paul78701

It will be pretty cool one day when one can stand on the Congress Ave bridge, look left...look right, and see pretty much contiguous skyline from the Lamar bridge all the way to the I-35 bridge.

I want the skyline to extend even further, frankly, all the way to MoPac, with a sort-of Portland-esque South Waterfront in both our Southshore District and higher level urbanity (I.E. 10-15 stories, so smaller skyline, but skyline nonetheless) when the Brackenridge tract eventually redevelops, and I want the skyline to extend further east, with significantly higher floor counts, in the 6th street urban corridor. Furthermore, I want higher floor counts in west campus (true towers, perhaps with more diversity of uses to disperse commuter patterns in the core lessening the disparity in regional/location infrastructure burdens, would be nice) and higher floor counts in the capital complex as well.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I want the skyline to extend even further, frankly, all the way to MoPac, with a sort-of Portland-esque South Waterfront in both our Southshore District and higher level urbanity (I.E. 10-15 stories, so smaller skyline, but skyline nonetheless) when the Brackenridge tract eventually redevelops, and I want the skyline to extend further east, with significantly higher floor counts, in the 6th street urban corridor. Furthermore, I want higher floor counts in west campus (true towers, perhaps with more diversity of uses to disperse commuter patterns in the core lessening the disparity in regional/location infrastructure burdens, would be nice) and higher floor counts in the capital complex as well.

That all sounds good to me.

[drummer]

I like it also.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I want the skyline to extend even further, frankly, all the way to MoPac, with a sort-of Portland-esque South Waterfront in both our Southshore District and higher level urbanity (I.E. 10-15 stories, so smaller skyline, but skyline nonetheless) when the Brackenridge tract eventually redevelops, and I want the skyline to extend further east, with significantly higher floor counts, in the 6th street urban corridor. Furthermore, I want higher floor counts in west campus (true towers, perhaps with more diversity of uses to disperse commuter patterns in the core lessening the disparity in regional/location infrastructure burdens, would be nice) and higher floor counts in the capital complex as well.

I'm with ya, but we all know that the above is not going to happen...our views on this are in the minority. There are too many people around who fear tall buildings.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I'm with ya, but we all know that the above is not going to happen...our views on this are in the minority. There are too many people around who fear tall buildings.

I can see your point and agree in part, however I don't know if I'd go as far as it's not going to happen period.

I think in another 15 or 20 years we will see much more density in the urban core and the push to expand DT beyond its current boundaries. Times will be different, the city will have matured more and with more people opinions will continue to change. I mean just look at how much has changed since 2000. I think few people here on this forum or the average Austinite would have imagined we would see the kind skyline we have today or the amount of density we have begun to build up. Unless my 20 year old self was sent 15 years into the future I would have never thought that Lamar would one day be lined with massive VMU low and mid rises or Riverside or anywhere else for that matter. Even though I've always wanted to see Austin built up, you wouldn't have been able to convince me in 2000 that anything like what we have seen would happen considering the general opinion of the NAs and city council at that time. It was simply just an urban fantasy.

Things have changed and they will continue to do so. As the city continues to grow and mature so will the perception of the population. In time the need will come where DT will have to expand west and east. Eventually the South Shore Central District will become an extension of DT. In some aspects it already is now and people are beginning to accept that.

So I agree that there is still a negative stigma that is being perpetuated by the ANC and anti-density crowd right now but let's face it, that crowd is shrinking and more people are realizing that Austin is still Austin despite the changes we have seen over the last 15 years. We are simply larger and more mature than before. We still have a ways to go but we will get there.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I can see your point and agree in part, however I don't know if I'd go as far as it's not going to happen period.

I think in another 15 or 20 years we will see much more density in the urban core and the push to expand DT beyond its current boundaries. Times will be different, the city will have matured more and with more people opinions will continue to change. I mean just look at how much has changed since 2000. I think few people here on this forum or the average Austinite would have imagined we would see the kind skyline we have today or the amount of density we have begun to build up. Unless my 20 year old self was sent 15 years into the future I would have never thought that Lamar would one day be lined with massive VMU low and mid rises or Riverside or anywhere else for that matter. Even though I've always wanted to see Austin built up, you wouldn't have been able to convince me in 2000 that anything like what we have seen would happen considering the general opinion of the NAs and city council at that time. It was simply just an urban fantasy.

Things have changed and they will continue to do so. As the city continues to grow and mature so will the perception of the population. In time the need will come where DT will have to expand west and east. Eventually the South Shore Central District will become an extension of DT. In some aspects it already is now and people are beginning to accept that.

So I agree that there is still a negative stigma that is being perpetuated by the ANC and anti-density crowd right now but let's face it, that crowd is shrinking and more people are realizing that Austin is still Austin despite the changes we have seen over the last 15 years. We are simply larger and more mature than before. We still have a ways to go but we will get there.

Agreed. You have to let folks get used to the idea that urban growth isn't evil or dangerous. Once they do (and once they reap some of the benefits of it), they'll probably be some of the greatest proponents of it....okay, maybe the last part is a stretch, but the bottom line is things will normalize in some ways. In other ways, it'll always be a battle, I'm sure, but some things will get easier.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I think in another 15 or 20 years we will see much more density in the urban core and the push to expand DT beyond its current boundaries. Times will be different, the city will have matured more and with more people opinions will continue to change. I mean just look at how much has changed since 2000. I think few people here on this forum or the average Austinite would have imagined we would see the kind skyline we have today or the amount of density we have begun to build up.

I agree, the city continues to grow in spite of a majority of its residents wishing it wouldn't. We've seen so many changes approved against fierce opposition, and this momentum is only gaining strength. I have quite a few friends who have a lot of resentment towards the urbanization of Austin, and they are all adapting to the changes, becoming more sanguine about the development of the skyline and the densification in some of the areas outside of downtown. Their views tend to follow rather than lead, but they're all modifying their concept of Austin's identity.

I'd even like to suggest that we're going to see a growing acceptance of increased urbanization that will come about as a result of the death of the old Austin that lives on in people's memories. This has been an awkward city for a couple of decades, transitioning out of its adolescence, but I think it's gotten to a point now where people have a completely new concept of Austin, and it's a concept that embraces 5 million people and a sprawling skyline. In the last few years there have been changes that are harbingers of things to come, laying the foundation of a large, world-class city. We've arrived at a critical mass that can now attract even more capital, innovation, cultural amenities and gravitas. Look at the way Apple, Google, and Oracle are investing here --- it's mind-boggling!

Have a look at this for some perspective on how Austin is seen in the broader context of global cities: http://creativecities.eiu.com/
Excerpt:
"In this special feature, The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) showcases five forward-looking cities—Austin, Berlin, Mexico City, Mumbai and Seoul—each with a distinctly vibrant creative economy that produces cultural goods and services in fields such as art, media and music."

The forces of change are gaining momentum and the forces of resistance are just about what is needed in order to moderate the growth and keep it from overwhelming the region's capacity to handle it.

[edit: I just happened to look up at the name of this thread and realized I'm probably way off topic, but oh well...]

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Tech House

I agree, the city continues to grow in spite of a majority of its residents wishing it wouldn't. We've seen so many changes approved against fierce opposition, and this momentum is only gaining strength. I have quite a few friends who have a lot of resentment towards the urbanization of Austin, and they are all adapting to the changes, becoming more sanguine about the development of the skyline and the densification in some of the areas outside of downtown. Their views tend to follow rather than lead, but they're all modifying their concept of Austin's identity.

I'd even like to suggest that we're going to see a growing acceptance of increased urbanization that will come about as a result of the death of the old Austin that lives on in people's memories. This has been an awkward city for a couple of decades, transitioning out of its adolescence, but I think it's gotten to a point now where people have a completely new concept of Austin, and it's a concept that embraces 5 million people and a sprawling skyline. In the last few years there have been changes that are harbingers of things to come, laying the foundation of a large, world-class city. We've arrived at a critical mass that can now attract even more capital, innovation, cultural amenities and gravitas. Look at the way Apple, Google, and Oracle are investing here --- it's mind-boggling!

Have a look at this for some perspective on how Austin is seen in the broader context of global cities: http://creativecities.eiu.com/
Excerpt:
"In this special feature, The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) showcases five forward-looking cities—Austin, Berlin, Mexico City, Mumbai and Seoul—each with a distinctly vibrant creative economy that produces cultural goods and services in fields such as art, media and music."

The forces of change are gaining momentum and the forces of resistance are just about what is needed in order to moderate the growth and keep it from overwhelming the region's capacity to handle it.

[edit: I just happened to look up at the name of this thread and realized I'm probably way off topic, but oh well...]

Very true, I also saw the story about JLL's ranking on the amount of investment in real estate in proportion of the city's GDP and Austin ranks 12th in the world and 4th in the U.S. I'll need to find the link.

Yea it's kinda gone off topic but it is rooted with what is going on with this proposal.

[wwmiv]

It's eventually going to happen.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's eventually going to happen.

Yep.

[wwmiv]

There's just no way it won't. It's called path dependence of growth. Even if we have a renewed focus on suburban growth, we're going to see taller towers sprout in almost every direction from downtown in the areas that are already the most urban. The only question mark is what happens to the Breckenridge Tract. Does or does UT not redevelop that land? If they go through with their long-term plans, that'll end up happening, too.

Look, for instance, at the metros that are the size that Austin will be in 30-40 years as illustrative: Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis, San Diego, Phoenix. All these have significant high use urban outgrowth regardless of how urban the rest of their metro area is. Phoenix has a surprisingly dense, if not particularly tall, downtown and multiple other dense use urban clusters around the metro area, even if the metro area as a whole is /not dense at all/. Same thing for Atlanta. We all think of much of the core of Atlanta as being an urban paradise, but it is also the least dense metro area in the entire country and look how far Atlanta's walkable core extends! It's the same story for all of these metro areas, whether they lack height (for Phoenix and San Diego, they only lack height because of FAA regulations) or not (the rest), their urban walkable high rise core spreads for a good deal more than Austin's currently... and if we end up that size, shouldn't we simply expect to end up where they are now (or even more, given development trends)?

[The ATX]

On Tuesday the Planning Commission votes on the right of way vacations that will increase the FAR for this project. It looks good at this point after a long struggle for the next big Rainey St. project.

Item C15 is for this project:
http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boa...tings/40_1.htm

[The ATX]

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the street vacations allowing for an increased FAR. So we can now look forward to a more detailed development proposal. It took like 2 1/2 years for the developers to get through the red tape to get this approved.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by The ATX

It took like 2 1/2 years for the developers to get through the red tape to get this approved.

Much longer than that, sir. This "idea" began seeking approvals back in 2007 by Town Lake Holdings, a group lead by Austin commercial real estate developer Larry Nelson.

It was their intent, at the time (due to the economic downturn), to obtain all of the proper entitlements to this site in an effort to increase the value of the land and attempt to sell it. This very well could be the same in the current case.

Time will tell...but, this "project" has been in-the-works for almost a decade.

[Tech House]

The illustrations we've seen so far are merely indicators of what is generally believed to be the potential for the property, correct? My hope is that we won't see another Fats Domino, such as what is indicated in the illustrations, so that it doesn't dominate the beautiful view of the skyline from that part of I-35. Considering that the freeway is likely to be taken down below grade, I don't see why the current plan only mentions above-ground parking. I would think they could put at least 2 or 3 levels below grade, without having to do any wildly expensive engineering. On the other hand, putting them all above-ground might result in a taller structure overall, in which case i gots no complaints, boss.

[The ATX]

I can't be sure if this is related to this project. It could be for a variety of things including a SXSW event. But a permit request was filed to survey by the site where this project is proposed. The area mentioned is the block surrounded by East Ave, River St., Lambie St. and I-35.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...rtyrsn=2019444

[The ATX]

This map was released today along with a lot of other good stuff in this week's AULCC files. It's for something at 55 East. It's related to the link in my previous post. I think 55 East is a new project next to the mythical Lambie Cove residential project.


ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...enue_PLANS.pdf

[The ATX]

A Development Assessment (Land Status Determination) permit was filed today for 805 Lambie St. That's one of the addresses used for this old Page 4 project. The site is currently being used as a construction staging location for Natiivo and maybe 44 East as well.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/public-s...pertyrsn=92924