HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2010, 8:00 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Finally, the basic common sense test ought to be this: does the presence of the transit allow for more successfully satisfied demand for density (and less parking) than other developments in the same area? In the case of the Red Line further down in Austin, we know this to not be the case - Crestview Station is less dense than the Triangle, for instance.
I don't think that is going to happen in Austin anytime soon. I think it is an unreasonable expectation to make of Austin. It is a best practice theory that only works in very dense places. We're not NYC or London with tons of rail routes to choose from. Our little train goes just a few places, infrequently I might add, so people are still going to need an auto to get 95% of the other places they go. Austin will need to provide ample parking in places like this, until rail routes are much improved. Not to mention for the businesses that open in these areas. If my customers have no place to park, then business is going to be tough. I may decide not to rent, bad for the landlord too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2010, 8:35 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
I don't think that is going to happen in Austin anytime soon. I think it is an unreasonable expectation to make of Austin. It is a best practice theory that only works in very dense places. We're not NYC or London with tons of rail routes to choose from. Our little train goes just a few places, infrequently I might add, so people are still going to need an auto to get 95% of the other places they go. Austin will need to provide ample parking in places like this, until rail routes are much improved. Not to mention for the businesses that open in these areas. If my customers have no place to park, then business is going to be tough. I may decide not to rent, bad for the landlord too.
You might think it unreasonable, but good light rail systems all over the country are satisfying this metric right now. Notice that I didn't say people have to be willing to give up their car to live there; merely that they have to be willing to pay more per square foot (or accept fewer square feet, or various other permutations leading to 'more density') to live there than in a similar development without the transit. IE - for a development to be transit-oriented, the transit should be good enough that it's an actual selling point in reality, not just in theory.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2010, 11:34 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Littman's 'narrow' definition also requires that it prioritize transit over parking; and the pictures you supply contradict what's on the ground there now anyways.

Finally, the basic common sense test ought to be this: does the presence of the transit allow for more successfully satisfied demand for density (and less parking) than other developments in the same area? In the case of the Red Line further down in Austin, we know this to not be the case - Crestview Station is less dense than the Triangle, for instance.
The Triangle is really not that dense, and it has a ton of parking - so I'm not sure how that proves your point that Leander is a TAD.

The Triangle is what it is because it was heavily subsidized (and Crestview not), and it is closer to UT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2010, 1:31 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
The Triangle is really not that dense, and it has a ton of parking - so I'm not sure how that proves your point that Leander is a TAD.

The Triangle is what it is because it was heavily subsidized (and Crestview not), and it is closer to UT.
Again with the disingenuous nonsense.

I was comparing the Triangle to Crestview - not to Leander; my most recent comment about Leander was that the design on paper doesn't mesh with what's there on the ground now. (Where does the current parking for the commuter rail line go?)

As for Triangle vs. Crestview - again, if the presence of the rail transit doesn't allow for much higher density than you get in the same basic conditions with the absence of the rail transit, it's not a TOD. Crestview has density similar to other developments that aren't even on bus transit, much less rail transit. Crestview has the same (fairly good) bus transit to UT as does the Triangle. They're 5 minutes closer to UT on the bus; and most students at the Triangle aren't driving to UT.

Triangle wasn't subsidized either - not in the normal sense - you're thinking of Mueller - which is also disappointing.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2010, 4:26 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
You might think it unreasonable, but good light rail systems all over the country are satisfying this metric right now. Notice that I didn't say people have to be willing to give up their car to live there; merely that they have to be willing to pay more per square foot (or accept fewer square feet, or various other permutations leading to 'more density') to live there than in a similar development without the transit. IE - for a development to be transit-oriented, the transit should be good enough that it's an actual selling point in reality, not just in theory.
Sorry, I homed in on the "parking" aspect of your definition of TOD. I was under the impression that you were saying that the definition of TOD is simply less parking required, period.

I think I understand now what you were saying: the same amount of parking is still there as if it did not have an adjacent rail station, however the difference is, at any given time, in a TOD,the ratio of people to cars would be higher. The reasoning, would be that the train dropped some of the people, where as if the train station was NOT adjacent, then everyone that was present would have to drive, making the people to car ratio be lower.

And that is what I was trying to say, that these development better have the same amount of parking, regardless if a train station is present, because the trains are just a novelty item at this point in time. We basically have 80 years of sprawl to undo, and it isn't going to happen over night. As a retailer, I damn sure want to have ample parking for my customers.

What invariably occurs at these VMU's, is that residents living on top get lazy and park their car in the retail parking areas, blocking off prime spots. Their quick trip upstairs gets interrupted by a phone call, ect. So one could argue that even more parking is required at a TOD, not less. I lived in 3 different VMU's and this occurs ALL the time.

Last edited by JAM; Aug 13, 2010 at 4:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2010, 6:17 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAM View Post
Sorry, I homed in on the "parking" aspect of your definition of TOD. I was under the impression that you were saying that the definition of TOD is simply less parking required, period.

I think I understand now what you were saying: the same amount of parking is still there as if it did not have an adjacent rail station, however the difference is, at any given time, in a TOD,the ratio of people to cars would be higher. The reasoning, would be that the train dropped some of the people, where as if the train station was NOT adjacent, then everyone that was present would have to drive, making the people to car ratio be lower.

And that is what I was trying to say, that these development better have the same amount of parking, regardless if a train station is present, because the trains are just a novelty item at this point in time. We basically have 80 years of sprawl to undo, and it isn't going to happen over night. As a retailer, I damn sure want to have ample parking for my customers.

What invariably occurs at these VMU's, is that residents living on top get lazy and park their car in the retail parking areas, blocking off prime spots. Their quick trip upstairs gets interrupted by a phone call, ect. So one could argue that even more parking is required at a TOD, not less. I lived in 3 different VMU's and this occurs ALL the time.
These TODs (even on good light rail lines in Sunbelt cities) should and do assume that residents still have cars and still want to use them, but the transit access should be as easy or easier than the car access - and the price of having a car should be unbundled from the rent/sales price of the dwelling itself.

Without free parking, your last issue is less of a concern.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2010, 8:02 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Without free parking, your last issue is less of a concern.
I was going to mention to prevent residents from parking in prime retail spots that pay parking could be installed, but having to pay for parking discourages retail clients - especially in the suburbs where it is totally abnormal. I hear people bitch about having to pay for parking DT all the time, you could just imagine how people would complain in Cedar Park or even North Burnet Gateway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2010, 3:15 PM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Again with the disingenuous nonsense.

I was comparing the Triangle to Crestview - not to Leander; my most recent comment about Leander was that the design on paper doesn't mesh with what's there on the ground now. (Where does the current parking for the commuter rail line go?)

As for Triangle vs. Crestview - again, if the presence of the rail transit doesn't allow for much higher density than you get in the same basic conditions with the absence of the rail transit, it's not a TOD. Crestview has density similar to other developments that aren't even on bus transit, much less rail transit. Crestview has the same (fairly good) bus transit to UT as does the Triangle. They're 5 minutes closer to UT on the bus; and most students at the Triangle aren't driving to UT.

Triangle wasn't subsidized either - not in the normal sense - you're thinking of Mueller - which is also disappointing.
How is $7.5M in public funding not a 'normal' subsidy?

http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=61876

And yes, there is no TOD at Leander yet (development doesn't happen over night). The planned TOD will be built partly on the existing park and ride, placing the parking into structures integrated into the development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2010, 7:11 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
How is $7.5M in public funding not a 'normal' subsidy?

http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=61876
I read thru the link above and saw all the waived fees, is this pretty standard if a good size building is put in the city?

(I don't recall ever having any fees waived when we finished out our 3 walled retail space... small guy lose again)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2010, 2:24 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
How is $7.5M in public funding not a 'normal' subsidy?

http://www.cityofaustin.org/edims/document.cfm?id=61876
That's absolute nonsense. Read the details - the city paid the developer back for the construction of interior streets and open space which is open to the public. Standard practice with any development.

Quote:
And yes, there is no TOD at Leander yet (development doesn't happen over night). The planned TOD will be built partly on the existing park and ride, placing the parking into structures integrated into the development.
There's no sign of anything remotely like TOD at Leander despite original claims it'd be well under construction if not even open by now - just like in South Florida, it died on the vine. Nobody wants to pay extra (or pay the same for perceived 'less') to be on a rail line that sucks this badly - again, just like in South Florida.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2010, 5:55 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,193
It's really hard to find anything that's not moldy about this development - here's the most recent news I could find:

from Impact News in late 2009

Special district, change in zoning could help jump start transformation from rural landscape into urban area


LEANDER — When the Leander transit-oriented development was designed in 2005, the city created an award-winning TOD Smart Code to help guide development in the area. But nearly five years later, nothing has been built in the TOD, and some wonder if the code is as smart for landowners as city officials thought it would be.



The 2,300-acre development is planned to include a mix of dense commercial and residential land uses close to Capital Metro’s commuter rail to create a pedestrian-friendly environment.


But for the next 10 years, some landowners in the TOD will not have to follow the same rules as their neighbors. In September, the city council approved a zoning change for a 60-acre portion of the city’s TOD to allow more flexibility in land use.


Some worry the changes to zoning will undo years of work and set a precedent to allow other areas in the TOD to get around land use rules. Proponents believe it will spur development in the long run and demonstrate how flexible those rules can be.


Leander council members David Siebold, Place 6, and Kirsten Lynch, Place 2, expressed their concern for rezoning because it seems to go against the original intentions of the TOD.


“We are talking about reverting back to the old way and old zoning,” Lynch said. “My understanding was to make the TOD have a wow factor, but this is taking away the wow.”


Siebold agrees.


“If we [change zoning] up there, people are going to wonder why we don’t do it in other places,” he said. “How do we not set the tone for this to be open to undo the TOD?”


Pix Howell, urban design officer for


Leander, said completely building out the TOD will take several decades. Major


urban development in the rezoned area is at least 30 years away because construction on commercial projects in the core of the TOD is not expected to break ground until sometime in 2011.


“That [60-acre] location follows the edge of the TOD,” he said. “I don’t think we ever intended for that to be high density five- or six-story buildings. Down the road, the Smart Code will be advantageous to do mixed development, but that won’t happen in the next 10 years.”
Zoning rolled back


Known as a special district, the new zoning affects a handful of owners on about 60 acres near the US 183 and Toll 183A intersection. Zoning for any projects built in the district over the next 10 years will be grandfathered into the TOD once the change expires in 2019.


Special districts are used only in cases where a special condition exists, such as the need for single-use developments, Howell said.



For example, if a sports stadium were built in the TOD, officials might create a special district to accommodate the specific needs of the development, Howell said. The same would be true for a hospital or college campus.


“To maintain the fabric of the area, we need to make sure it will transition out to surrounding areas,” he said. “Not everything will have the same level of intense development as the core. As you get to the fringe, you want to transition to more suburban developments.”


In this case, the land is near the edge of Leander city limits and on the fringe of the TOD, where urban development is not very likely.


Howell initiated the new zoning based on standard suburban codes rather than TOD requirements to give the landowners greater flexibility to develop or sell their property.


“The more tools you can give people to develop their property, the better the TOD will be,” he said. “We are exercising the part of the code that allows us to make a special district, which will demonstrate the capability the code has to create a unique condition in the TOD.”
Changing zones


The TOD Smart Code, a governing document that lists the TOD’s zoning codes and addresses development construction, allows changes in land use over time without having to go through a formal rezoning process, so long as the


urban nature stays intact.


During a standard rezoning procedure, landowners submit a change request form and a fee to the city’s planning and zoning office. Officials hold public hearings, then present a recommendation to city council members who decide on the request.


The process often takes about 60 days and must be repeated each time the property changes uses—for example, if a developer wants to turn an old restaurant into a doctor’s office.


In the TOD, a similar zoning process will still be required for initial construction or to tear down and rebuild a development; however, once the zoning procedure occurs and building code


requirements are met, changing land use will be an administrative process that could be done in as little as a week.
Banking on land development


Howell said a common development trend called land banking is not possible in the TOD without making a special district. The new zoning will make such projects easier, thus speeding up development in that part of the TOD.


The land bank allows a company to


establish a storefront that requires little construction or investment, such as a used car lot or garden center. The project is built in an area predicted to grow in the coming 10 to 15 years.


Once neighboring developments catch up, the property can be redeveloped or sold for a premium. The advantage, Howell said, is that such early developments expand infrastructure, such as electricity, in a rural area. Early development also creates a base value for surrounding properties, which in turn, helps municipalities and tax districts raise money earlier.


A further advantage comes from the tax increment-financing district in the TOD. When owners make improvements to land in the TOD, 50 percent of any taxes collected on the enhancements will be reinvested in the area for such public projects as roads, utilities and parks.



Land banking projects would not ordinarily be allowed in the TOD because of prohibitions on outside sales and restrictions on drive-thrus, which are only permitted behind a building.


“Creation of this special district shows how flexible the Smart Code can be in a changing market that will develop over the next 30 years,” Howell said. “We may need to create other special districts with different zoning elsewhere, but the goal is to keep the overall organism productive and successful.”
Owner hopes change will help sale


When the TOD was created in 2005, annexed land was designated single-family use and strict codes regulating development were implemented to support the dense urban development associated with the TOD.


That has created difficulties for landowners in the area, such as Louese Meyer, who owns about 3 acres just south of the US 183/Toll 183A intersection.


She has been trying to sell her land for the past seven years.


“We had a number of inquiries on our land, but when they decided to put it in the TOD, everything just stopped,” Meyer said. “I’m hoping we will be able to sell it easier now without all the real bad restrictions they had on it.”


Meyer and her husband, who died in 2001, bought 7 acres of land near US 183 in 1978. The couple built a house and a depot for trucks they used to distribute Borden milk, a business they operated since 1953.


In the early 1980s, Meyer began to hear rumors of a new highway that would cut her land in half. In 2004, she agreed to sell most of her property, which included a portion of her home, to make way for Toll 183A.


What remains today is 3 acres of bare grassland, except for a concrete slab where her house used to sit. Despite the smaller size, the tax valuation has nearly tripled in recent years.


Meyer would like to see her land developed into a business that would benefit Leander, such as a combination service station and diner.


“It hasn’t been long enough for the word to get around that the zoning changed,” she said. “Once word gets out, I really do think it will help with the sale.”
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 3:20 PM
grojas grojas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
9 Acre Park

Does anyone have any idea when work on the park, promised so long ago for this area, will begin?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 3:50 AM
bluedogok's Avatar
bluedogok bluedogok is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 804
I saw this in today's paper. With the time frame (opening in February) I bet it is the existing vacant building at Domain Drive and Esperanza Crossing , the one with the Cadillac super graphics up right now.

Statesman.com - Austin getting Fiat dealership at the Domain
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2010, 1:36 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by grojas View Post
Does anyone have any idea when work on the park, promised so long ago for this area, will begin?

They just got an extension on the deadline in their zoning case. They aren't required to build the park until they break ground on the residential surrounding it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2010, 6:47 PM
bluedogok's Avatar
bluedogok bluedogok is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 804
Bailey, Banks & Biddle reopened the store they closed in The Domain last year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 9:00 AM
austin242 austin242 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 591
Thought y'all might wanna see some new renders of Phase 2. I think it looks pretty cool

http://www.gensler.com/#projects/218
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,842
Now that is more like it! I am impressed by the sheer size of phase two and the amount of density. Looks like we could see some tall buildings, specifically look at rendering 2 in the back there is a fairly tall tower that looks to be 25 to 30 floors or so. To bad it wont let you zoom into the map close up. Im assuming construction has begun on phase two. I pass by there on my way up to Northridge. They have started building the Whole Foods but it looks like there is a crane farther back behind the Aloft hotel and quite a lot of cleared land.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 2:07 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The ATX
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Now that is more like it! I am impressed by the sheer size of phase two and the amount of density. Looks like we could see some tall buildings, specifically look at rendering 2 in the back there is a fairly tall tower that looks to be 25 to 30 floors or so. To bad it wont let you zoom into the map close up. Im assuming construction has begun on phase two. I pass by there on my way up to Northridge. They have started building the Whole Foods but it looks like there is a crane farther back behind the Aloft hotel and quite a lot of cleared land.

I know there is a new apartment building going up behind the Westin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2012, 9:24 AM
austin242 austin242 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 591
Yah I was wondering what that building in the background was too. Hotel Valencia looks to be about 11 or 12 stories. For the domain or anywhere outside downtown thats pretty tall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 3:49 AM
PartyLine PartyLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Now that is more like it! I am impressed by the sheer size of phase two and the amount of density. Looks like we could see some tall buildings, specifically look at rendering 2 in the back there is a fairly tall tower that looks to be 25 to 30 floors or so. To bad it wont let you zoom into the map close up. Im assuming construction has begun on phase two. I pass by there on my way up to Northridge. They have started building the Whole Foods but it looks like there is a crane farther back behind the Aloft hotel and quite a lot of cleared land.

Maby it's the 29 story Twelve hotel/condos that was proposed to be built in there a while back?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.