Austin | Block 32 (3rd & San Jacinto) | 604 FT, 54 FLRS | 466 FT, 41 FLRS | Proposed - Page 2

migol24 · #21 Posted **Dec 11, 2021, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Staff recommends that the Vince Young restaurant be rezoned as historical.

That's kinda dumb.

MichaelB · #22 Posted **Dec 11, 2021, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Planning Commission takes up the zoning change at the 12/14 meeting. Staff recommends that the Vince Young restaurant be rezoned as historical.

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=373142

I, for one... Maybe the only one on here.... am happy to see this !

KevinFromTexas · #23 Posted **Dec 11, 2021, 5:21 AM**

Unique as that style may be, that old timey warehouse model, it's crap for pedestrians and everyone knows it.

And what's not to love about this boutique parking lot?

Lobotomizer · #24 Posted **Dec 11, 2021, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Unique as that style may be, that old timey warehouse model, it's crap for pedestrians and everyone knows it.

And what's not to love about this boutique parking lot?

Certain folks apparently really like parking lots, and crappy sidewalks downtown.

MichaelB · #25 Posted **Dec 11, 2021, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Certain folks apparently really like parking lots, and crappy sidewalks downtown.

Is this in reference to what is for the moment "Vince Young's"? Cause that photo has nothing to do with it.
Just checking.

lonewolf · #26 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 1:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I, for one... Maybe the only one on here.... am happy to see this !

you're not alone!

MichaelB · #27 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf

you're not alone!

papertowelroll · #28 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 4:12 PM**

I like when they keep the warehouse-esque facades to keep the vibe alive. The new Tommie hotel looks sharp for example. I don't mind (and in fact appreciate) them requiring that here at all, but to completely block development for this particular building is silly.

lonewolf · #29 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I like when they keep the warehouse-esque facades to keep the vibe alive. The new Tommie hotel looks sharp for example. I don't mind (and in fact appreciate) them requiring that here at all, but to completely block development for this particular building is silly.

their hand was forced when plans were introduced to develop the lot. obviously nobody was clamoring for it to be deemed historical but it was a use it or lose it scenario. with the pace of development in the area i think that's the right call.

in a perfect world we would have its "historicalness" reassessed in 10 years but i'm sure that's not how it goes.

papertowelroll · #30 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf

their hand was forced when plans were introduced to develop the lot. obviously nobody was clamoring for it to be deemed historical but it was a use it or lose it scenario. with the pace of development in the area i think that's the right call.

in a perfect world we would have its "historicalness" reassessed in 10 years but i'm sure that's not how it goes.

Understood, but I think if they come back with a plan that has a warehouse facade for a building that's appropriately sized for today's Austin that'd be a win for everyone and the city should allow it. Just my opinion. I agree with not putting a glass box in this spot.

We vs us · #31 Posted **Dec 13, 2021, 10:38 PM**

I'm hopeful there's a compromise that allows it to be incorporated into a tower somehow -- if we're lucky it'll resemble what the Hanover Brazos St. will be doing with their old facade, or something similar.

The ATX · #32 Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

I'm hopeful there's a compromise that allows it to be incorporated into a tower somehow -- if we're lucky it'll resemble what the Hanover Brazos St. will be doing with their old facade, or something similar.

They still have a quarter block to build a point tower if that's what they need to do to preserve the history of groceries in Austin.

The ATX · #33 Posted **Dec 15, 2021, 11:06 PM**

The PC postponed this until the 01/11 meeting. No reason given.

The ATX · #34 Posted **Jan 13, 2022, 5:24 PM**

Vince's place took a big step closer to demo.

Quote:

The Planning Commission ultimately supported the property owner's request and voted on Jan. 11 to deny staff's recommendation for the historic landmark zoning change. The case will go to Austin City Council, which will need a three-fourth vote to override the owner's request, Suttle said.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...signation.html

kingkirbythe.... · #35 Posted **Jan 13, 2022, 6:42 PM**

Good

Urbannizer · #36 Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 2:51 PM**

Council takes first vote to declare warehouse historic

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...ouse-historic/

Quote:

On a vote of 7-2-2, City Council on Thursday approved on first reading a request for historic zoning for the property at 301 San Jacinto St. downtown. Council members Pio Renteria and Paige Ellis voted no and Greg Casar and Vanessa Fuentes were off the dais.

Will Houston, the managing partner for the owner, initially told Council he objected to the historic designation for the Nalley-Shear-Bremond warehouse. Designating a building historic over the objections of the owner requires nine votes on the third and final reading.

During a recess that allowed Mayor Steve Adler to take a phone call, Houston agreed to talk to city staff over the next two weeks to see if they can reach an agreement about the building’s future. Council Member Kathie Tovo, whose district includes the downtown area, suggested that the city might be able to transfer some development rights to work with Houston.

ILUVSAT · #37 Posted **Feb 4, 2022, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

I, for one... Maybe the only one on here.... am happy to see this !

I have a hard time agreeing with anything being "historical" if it's been gutted several times over the years (and MTV's Real World was allowed to be filmed in it).

I'm all for preserving buildings that actually have a historical significance. However, I'm against it if the only reason the city oversteps an owners right is that the building is "old."

This building has zero historical significance and was not even considered for preservation when the city was developing plans for a westward expansion of the convention center.

I smell a winnable lawsuit coming should the council find the necessary 9 votes for preservation.

OfficialPBreton · #38 Posted **Feb 6, 2022, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf

in a perfect world we would have its "historicalness" reassessed in 10 years but i'm sure that's not how it goes.

I think you're looking for the word "historicity".

migol24 · #39 Posted **Feb 6, 2022, 5:37 AM**

No, it's "historicality".

Armybrat · #40 Posted **Feb 6, 2022, 6:17 PM**

Hysterical