AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by myBrain

The CVCs for 35 have always made the least sense to me. I mean sure, you're often sitting still in traffic, but in principle your eyes should be on the road, not swooning over the capitol.

I've thought the same ever since I learned about CVCs as a teen - these in particular encourage distracted driving on a dangerous highway. I'm not opposed to CVCs in general as I think they create a very unique effect on the skyline, especially as buildings get taller and create the view-canyons, and the capitol building has a lot of significance in the history of the city and state. While I don't agree when my older extended-family bemoan the changing fabric of the city, I do empathize when they fondly remember the capitol as the largest and most prominent structure that identified the city (my grandmother used to ride a pony into town from her aunts house in Travis Heights back in the 30's and loved the old view of the granite).

I'm not thrilled with TxDOT's overall plans for I-35, but I hope the elimination of those CVCs downtown and on the upper deck are a priority for the city and local leaders. I doubt the "preservationists" in Amarillo and East Texas are going to be in favor, but that seems to be a lot of land for potential (much-needed) density and a step in the direction of increased road safety.

[StoOgE]

I would *love* if the I35 burial gets rid of those CVCs but something tells me that there will be reasons we can't.

[zrx299]

Just get rid of the CVCs all together. It's a useless outdated concept. Skyscrapers already block most people's views from the streets and sidewalks.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Just get rid of the CVCs all together. It's a useless outdated concept. Skyscrapers already block most people's views from the streets and sidewalks.

The CVCs don’t protect views of the dome from downtown sidewalks, so this perspective and reasoning is really beside the point.

The CVCs largely protect views from I-35, parks, and historically important sites in addition to a few places that create unique and impressive vistas (The Pfluger pedestrian bridge, for instance). Getting rid of the ones on I-35 should not speak to whether we get rid of the others.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The CVCs don’t protect views of the dome from downtown sidewalks, so this perspective and reasoning is really beside the point.

The CVCs largely protect views from I-35, parks, and historically important sites in addition to a few places that create unique and impressive vistas (The Pfluger pedestrian bridge, for instance). Getting rid of the ones on I-35 should not speak to whether we get rid of the others.

100%

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh, I'm well aware of the CVCs in that area, and I have no beef with them for the most part, save for the I-35 ones since I-35 can die a bloody death, but I'm more commenting on the quality of what was built there under those corridors. And before economic metrics is used as an argument for why we can't have quality there, let's not forget that the Avenue Lofts happened there long ago.

It's just that the argument usually goes to what we could gain, which is great and is a legitimate need (more housing, etc) but there's also the issue of what we might lose. I'm no nimby, but I'd rather raze mediocre buildings nearby and let the unique ones - such as the Avenue Lofts, continue to be.

As for the CVCs, I've already said before that I'm good with them, but there are some that make no sense and it also makes no sense if the governments trusted with maintaining them aren't maintaining them. Since we also have tree ordinances protecting large trees, of which some block the view of the dome, some attention should be paid.

[scraperwill]

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

[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/do....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/do....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...wntown-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...wntown-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-...ouble-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/[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.