AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by scraperwill

By June/July there will be at least 5 towers >590’ newly under construction

Height info varies, but is it these five?:

98RR - 1,022'
307 W. 2nd - 786'
321 West - 675'
Modern Austin - 658'
415 Colorado - 640'

[The ATX]

This is probably going to be another big one with no CVCs on the site. 311 & 307 E. 5th at Trinity are up for total demolition at the 1/24 HLC meeting. This includes Russia House.

[We vs us]

Omg

EDIT: Also on the same list for total demo -- 1700 and 1704 Lavaca, which is just north of the new Hilton Garden Inn

[The ATX]

If anyone is interested in the MACC's expansion's plans, here's a presentation for the next DC meeting:

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=374646

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

If anyone is interested in the MACC's expansion's plans, here's a presentation for the next DC meeting:

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=374646

This actually answers the question we all had about that little unused strip of land outside of 70 Rainey. It's included here as a "welcome garden."

[kingkirbythe....]

Demolition Applications Could Signal Two New Towers in Downtown Austin

https://austin.towers.net/demolition-applications-could-signal-two-new-towers-in-downtown-austin/

A list of demolition applications under review for consideration at the upcoming January 24 meeting of the city’s Historic Landmark Commission tells the story of two possible new tower developments headed for downtown Austin, if you look closely — actually, the clues are incredibly obvious. Let’s take a peek for ourselves:

307 – 311 East Fifth Street

1700 – 1704 Lavaca Street

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

Demolition Applications Could Signal Two New Towers in Downtown Austin

https://austin.towers.net/demolition-applications-could-signal-two-new-towers-in-downtown-austin/

A list of demolition applications under review for consideration at the upcoming January 24 meeting of the city’s Historic Landmark Commission tells the story of two possible new tower developments headed for downtown Austin, if you look closely — actually, the clues are incredibly obvious. Let’s take a peek for ourselves:

307 – 311 East Fifth Street

1700 – 1704 Lavaca Street

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

[kingkirbythe....]

Here’s How Austin’s Mexican American Cultural Center Plans To Double in Size

https://austin.towers.net/heres-how-aust...cultural-center-plans-to-double-in-size/

A second phase of the MACC’s development has waited in the wings since the structure reached its current size in 2010, and after years of conversation and community engagement, we’ve finally got our first look at what’s in store for the center’s next phase from the design partnership of local firm Miró Rivera and acclaimed Mexican architect Tatiana Bilbao working on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

Agreed. Generic infill vs loss of texture. Really Sad.
Plus 2 restaurants that will probably never find downtown locations again.

[StoOgE]

I love it.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

I could understand wanting to at least keep the facade of the Vince Young steakhouse building, but these are all D-tier one story brick buildings. I'm completely fine with these getting replaced.

I do always like a good hybrid between the old and new, though. I'd love to see more concepts like the tower that was (is?) planned for the Masonic Lodge.
https://austin.towers.net/this-new-mason...ild-it-yesterday/[email protected]

[StoOgE]

We should have a 1 in 1 out policy on ground floor retail. You gotta replace whatever you destroy.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

We should have a 1 in 1 out policy on ground floor retail. You gotta replace whatever you destroy.

I agree with this. I don't mind losing the buildings but city should not allow the retail to be lost. We need to keep a healthy mix of residential, office, retail, restaurants, and bars. I also like keeping the warehouse-esque facades in this area.

[migol24]

I could have sworn that we already had some sort of regulation that required new development provide street level retail and interaction.

[KevinFromTexas]

Good architecture attracts eyes, but good uses attract foot traffic and economic activity. Losing an old building sucks, but what would suck more is replacing it with something that tells the greater public they're not welcome, either in its posture to the public right of way, or its lack of public uses because it offers no retail, and the only entrance is into some snazzy lobby where you're not welcome unless you live in the building. We can do better than that.

[H2O]

Nope. The Waterfront Overlay and Downtown Creeks and Parks overlay require 'pedestrian oriented uses' on the ground floor facing open space and it is encouraged for points for density bonus, but it is not required. There are a lot of circumstances where retail just doesn't work well, especially in the changing retail environment we are in. Requiring it outright would result in a lot of vacant ground floor retail space, which would be no better than, if not worse than, well designed facades and spaces.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I agree with this. I don't mind losing the buildings but city should not allow the retail to be lost. We need to keep a healthy mix of residential, office, retail, restaurants, and bars. I also like keeping the warehouse-esque facades in this area.

Calling this area the "Warehouse District" in 2022 is equally as insulting as "Rainey Street *Historic* District"

When I think warehouse or historic... sterile modern skyscrapers with ground floor chain retail is totally what comes to mind :eyeroll:

A like-for-like would be fine if the new build would actually try to incorporate unique and/or local options, instead of setting their lease rates skyhigh to where only Starbucks, Chipotle, Smoothie King, and other chains are the only ones who can afford it.

But that never happens. They'd rather the storefronts sit vacant than adjust rates and fill spaces that would actually benefit an area.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Calling this area the "Warehouse District" in 2022 is equally as insulting as "Rainey Street *Historic* District"

When I think warehouse or historic... sterile modern skyscrapers with ground floor chain retail is totally what comes to mind :eyeroll:

A like-for-like would be fine if the new build would actually try to incorporate unique and/or local options, instead of setting their lease rates skyhigh to where only Starbucks, Chipotle, Smoothie King, and other chains are the only ones who can afford it.

I don't feel like downtown has an inordinate amount of chain retail at the moment. But you're right in pointing out that effort needs to be made to prevent such places from dominating over locally owned establishments.

Originally Posted by zrx299

But that never happens. They'd rather the storefronts sit vacant than adjust rates and fill spaces that would actually benefit an area.

From what I understand as a laymen, real estate tax laws don't really encourage building owners to fill their retail spots. Somehow, leasing out those spots often isn't much better economically than just taking whatever tax deductions they are allowed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Calling this area the "Warehouse District" in 2022 is equally as insulting as "Rainey Street *Historic* District"

When I think warehouse or historic... sterile modern skyscrapers with ground floor chain retail is totally what comes to mind :eyeroll:

A like-for-like would be fine if the new build would actually try to incorporate unique and/or local options, instead of setting their lease rates skyhigh to where only Starbucks, Chipotle, Smoothie King, and other chains are the only ones who can afford it.

But that never happens. They'd rather the storefronts sit vacant than adjust rates and fill spaces that would actually benefit an area.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by paul78701

From what I understand as a laymen, real estate tax laws don't really encourage building owners to fill their retail spots. Somehow, leasing out those spots often isn't much better economically than just taking whatever tax deductions they are allowed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I've heard the same. In fact, when you're entering Bastrop from Austin, there is a big shopping center on your left that is completely empty. I remember dropping off an Uber passenger from the Airport who lived in the residential community directly behind it. People have tried calling the leasing number that is posted there to see if they can open up a Starbucks or something and everytime they call, there is either no answer, or they claim to have no space for rent.

Fun fact. It's also the spot where that Austin cop, VonTrey Clark, killed his pregnant girlfriend right behind that shopping center. When I dropped off my passenger he showed me exactly the spot where it happened.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/former-...ds-guilty-to-pregnant-girlfriends-murder

The passenger told me that they all speculated that it was maybe a money laundering spot but that doesn't make all that much sense.

My friend from San Francisco was the one that mentioned that lots of places do in fact leave them empty because tax breaks become much better than leasing them out. So that makes sense.