AUSTIN | Projects & Construction III

[wwmiv]

Not only that, but did you see the company that Austin was in on that page? Dubai? Baku? Jakarta? Amman? These are all major major up and coming cities.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by migol24

did you read the comment about how austin is going to turn like phoenix az? haha so silly.

I'm sorry to do this to our Phoenix skyscraper brethren, but Phoenix wishes they could have a vibrant downtown like we do. And if that person was talking about the housing crisis in Phoenix, fine, but the cause of Phoenix's housing crisis was suburban development which is most definitely not what is happening in downtown Austin.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The city OK'ed the new uses for the Seaholm site and construction should start this summer.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte....html#comments

Check out the comments to the article before the Statesman cuts them off. The anti-everything NIMBY trolls are out in full force busy typing their comments.

The opposition to the deal cut by the City Council has NOTHING to do with NIMBYism. I fully support the Seaholm redevelopment and the construction of the new tower. However, the fact that the power plant is being turned over to a private company with the bare minimum of public use is extremely disappointing. The interior of Seaholm is spectacular - a one-of-a-kind asset. Now, all the public will get to do is peek at it while eating lunch. This is very disappointing.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Thirdly, The Gatti's Pizza on MLK and San Antonio is closed, and the lady at Wendy's across the street told me today it will close on Friday. Does anyone know of development for these lots or did they just close due to lack of sales as the lady at Wendy's told me?

I don't know about the Wendy's, but a friend of mine who lives at 18th & San Antonio said Gatti's Pizza is being replaced by a Chick-fil-A.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by gardensoul

The opposition to the deal cut by the City Council has NOTHING to do with NIMBYism. I fully support the Seaholm redevelopment and the construction of the new tower. However, the fact that the power plant is being turned over to a private company with the bare minimum of public use is extremely disappointing. The interior of Seaholm is spectacular - a one-of-a-kind asset. Now, all the public will get to do is peek at it while eating lunch. This is very disappointing.

Agree 100 percent. I always thought it could be an incredible location for a farmers market open every day...something like Pike's Market in Austin.

On a separate note: I'm sorry but I am going to have to rant here...Can we please on this forum stop throwing around this word "NIMBY?" I feel most of the time you guys don't even realize what this word means...

Here is something to blow your mind...every time you guys cry out against a suburban development project, you are exercising your right to be a NIMBY. "How dare you" you say? Think about it...you are commenting on a project that is away from you because you have a vested interest in the community and city you live in. We all care about Austin and we want to be developed in a way that fits our view of the ideal city. This is what NIMBY is...its my backyard so I have a say in what goes in it. Sometimes there are people that don't share our opinion. That's life and it happens. Everyone of us has been a NIMBY at one point in your life unless you are for every single project that ever has been, which is certainly not the case because we all come on here and are interested in projects and how they develop. Guess what guys...when everyone hated the old Marriot design...we were being NIMBYs! Not like the design of the Hyatt or the new apartment on Brazos...same thing. This entire forum is a giant YIMBY and NIMBY outlet, and yet we hurl that phrase so divisively. Can we just please try and stop labeling people with such derogatory terms the eliminate any possibility of debate. And if we are going to use negative terms, at least use the right ones that don't insult your own actions. Thank you. Rant over.

[East7thStreet]

The problem is almost nobody ever goes and protests a new suburban development on the edge of town. Often times these new suburban developments are in uninhabited land where are are no neighbors. It's always these great infill developments in the middle of town which draw the ire of the crazy NIMBY people who have no sense of urban planning.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by East7thStreet

The problem is almost nobody ever goes and protests a new suburban development on the edge of town. Often times these new suburban developments are in uninhabited land where are are no neighbors. It's always these great infill developments in the middle of town which draw the ire of the crazy NIMBY people who have no sense of urban planning.

I agree NIMBYism does exist and it is more prevalent in the center of town. However, it has nothing to do with the disappointment in the Seaholm decision. Anyone with a "sense of urban planning" should be discouraged that this unique public resource has been turned over to private interests. And probably at a discounted rate.

[MichaelB]

I agree we are all NIMBY's is some way. I live downtown in a hight rise and you better believe I'm picky as shit about what is getting built around me. Yes, I am going to protect my property value. ANY home owner would!

[migol24]

well, i agree... no doubt we're nimby's too. the difference is that there are those nimby's that are about "anti" everything... and they live up to the name much better than we urban enthusiasts. and those people are annoying. anyways, i'm sure we all understand that.

[gmsalpha]

I'm not a NIMBY. Not of/for Austin, anyway. I used to live in Austin and vow to return. Thus, I like to see what's going on in the best city I've ever lived in. Obviously I have opinions, and I want the city to continue to thrive and become more dense. I want Austin to be a place that I always am attracted to.

Besides, I don't even think Orlando has a thread on skyscraperpages, so this is where I hang out and participate.

[KevinFromTexas]

Fair enough, Myomi. I don't really have a problem with them when they form a thoughtful opinion based on some knowledge they've gathered on the subject. Too many times, though, that's not the case and they tend to be anti everything with no rational explanation as to why. It's not even about picking your battles, someone should have a good reason with some good points to back up what they say other than an almost childish response. I'm with them on the argument against raising taxes and fears of it, and some things that increase traffic, but reading the Statesman comments makes it clear they haven't really educated themselves on the subject, and they also tend to fall for phony political ads.

As for urban development vs suburban development and the NIMBYism of both, suburban development catches so little flack but does the most harm. It contributes to traffic, air pollution, water pollution, light pollution, the heat island affect, it raises taxes since new services need to be extended to areas where cows once stood. Think new sewer lines, new water lines, new electric lines, new streets, new fire stations, new post offices, new schools, new hospitals, more police, fire and EMS personnel. I'm sure I've missed some, but those are just the obvious ones. As opposed to urban developments right in town which do need some added services, but most of them are already there.

Now if someone who was against urban development could make an argument against it with some points like I mentioned above, fine, but they usually don't.

By the way, I've always thought of the waterfront and Auditorium Shores, etc as Austin's front yard.

Anyway, Austin during the 90s got nothing. City council was run by a bunch of no growthers, and as a result, we got nothing. The city did grow, the population did, but there was also a lot of sprawl. What was lacking was any kind of contributions to downtown. Austin has nothing to offer to families in the way of large attractions. I would LOVE to see an aquarium built and or a planetarium. We've also had nice improvements made to our parks and even added some new ones. None of that stuff happened in the 90s. The city was really pretty stagnant. Crime was higher during the 90s than it is now. We had more than twice as many murders in 1991 than we did in 2006.

All the highrise development in downtown is going to generate more taxes for the county and city, money that can be used to help fund nice things for Austin, things people and families will enjoy. I hope that we see some new museums, an aquarium and planetarium. If we don't, I worry that it'll take away some of the legitimacy of all those new buildings being built and might be food for the NIMBYs or no-growthers or whatever people like to call them. But if new attractions get built that people will enjoy, it'll take some air out of their arguments against everything that was built.

[The ATX]

!!!!!

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Fair enough, Myomi. I don't really have a problem with them when they form a thoughtful opinion based on some knowledge they've gathered on the subject. Too many times, though, that's not the case and they tend to be anti everything with no rational explanation as to why. It's not even about picking your battles, someone should have a good reason with some good points to back up what they say other than an almost childish response. I'm with them on the argument against raising taxes and fears of it, and some things that increase traffic, but reading the Statesman comments makes it clear they haven't really educated themselves on the subject, and they also tend to fall for phony political ads.

As for urban development vs suburban development and the NIMBYism of both, suburban development catches so little flack but does the most harm. It contributes to traffic, air pollution, water pollution, light pollution, the heat island affect, it raises taxes since new services need to be extended to areas where cows once stood. Think new sewer lines, new water lines, new electric lines, new streets, new fire stations, new post offices, new schools, new hospitals, more police, fire and EMS personnel. I'm sure I've missed some, but those are just the obvious ones. As opposed to urban developments right in town which do need some added services, but most of them are already there.

Now if someone who was against urban development could make an argument against it with some points like I mentioned above, fine, but they usually don't.

By the way, I've always thought of the waterfront and Auditorium Shores, etc as Austin's front yard.

Anyway, Austin during the 90s got nothing. City council was run by a bunch of no growthers, and as a result, we got nothing. The city did grow, the population did, but there was also a lot of sprawl. What was lacking was any kind of contributions to downtown. Austin has nothing to offer to families in the way of large attractions. I would LOVE to see an aquarium built and or a planetarium. We've also had nice improvements made to our parks and even added some new ones. None of that stuff happened in the 90s. The city was really pretty stagnant. Crime was higher during the 90s than it is now. We had more than twice as many murders in 1991 than we did in 2006.

All the highrise development in downtown is going to generate more taxes for the county and city, money that can be used to help fund nice things for Austin, things people and families will enjoy. I hope that we see some new museums, an aquarium and planetarium. If we don't, I worry that it'll take away some of the legitimacy of all those new buildings being built and might be food for the NIMBYs or no-growthers or whatever people like to call them. But if new attractions get built that people will enjoy, it'll take some air out of their arguments against everything that was built.

[Syndic]

I'll never stop using the word 'NIMBY'. It's meant to be derogatory and offensive. These people are incorrigible. I don't consider myself a NIMBY because I don't oppose the wrong projects; NIMBYs do. They try to keep things as they are. They try to keep things suburban, small, and THEIRS. Mostly, they just don't want to share. They don't want new residents or new visitors to "their" neighborhood. And, really, it's not even theirs. The more central a location in a city, the more a place is the property of all citizens of the city. These neighborhood groups act like it's THEIR neighborhood only when it's really all of ours. That rubs people the wrong way. They're often people of privilege complaining (something no one wants to hear) and opposing extending privileges to others. It's just greed and selfishness.

I don't consider what we do NIMBYism. A neighborhood group is not a legislative body. They have no legal authority. So, we need to learn to completely ignore their cries when the situation calls for it.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I don't consider what we do NIMBYism. A neighborhood group is not a legislative body. They have no legal authority. So, we need to learn to completely ignore their cries when the situation calls for it.

The problem with a neighborhood group is that they DO have de facto authority given to them by the the city during the Neighborhood Planning process and as a voice for "the people" during development hearings. A few NIMBY members in high position in a Neighborhood Association have tremendous power.

Unfortunately folk like myself (I live in Allendale) are not vocal and involved to any great degree with our local association...and thus allow the NIMBY voice to have a much louder and deciding voice. This needs to change if all of central Austin is to grow-up in a fair and equitable long term fashion.

I agree that the entire Lady Bird Lake area...from dam to dam is the front yard of Austin and every Austinite needs to be involved and have a voice. The Seaholm lease to private offices is to last 20 years. Hopefully by then the region will have matured to the point that several important cultural/attractions will want the building for true great public benefit. Austin apparently is not there yet.

[Jdawgboy]

Ok here is my take on it. I deal with the Neighborhood Association where I live on a regular basis to the point to where I have to argue with them about any project that is announced. Yes I know quite well what the phrase "NIMBY" means. When I use the term NIMBY, im refering to those indiveduals who are so anti-growth, anti-development that they would do whatever it takes to stop it even if it would benefit them directly. These people do not care period. They dont care if Austin's economic health is hurt, they don't t care about any benefits or pluses any development would bring, and they dont care about the over all city as a whole. All they care is their little island, their yards and their neighbors.

You can't reason with them, you can't explain to them how it will help the area because they will not listen to you. They are hell bent on making it virtually impossible for development to the point that they would fight their own neighbors if they don't like the idea of them adding on to their house or build a small secondary house on their property. Im not talking about Mc. Mansions, im talking about small additions. Those are NIMBYs and yes I use that term to define those people in a negative way and I am not about to stop now.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by austex

The problem with a neighborhood group is that they DO have de facto authority given to them by the the city during the Neighborhood Planning process and as a voice for "the people" during development hearings. A few NIMBY members in high position in a Neighborhood Association have tremendous power.

Unfortunately folk like myself (I live in Allendale) are not vocal and involved to any great degree with our local association...and thus allow the NIMBY voice to have a much louder and deciding voice. This needs to change if all of central Austin is to grow-up in a fair and equitable long term fashion.

I agree that the entire Lady Bird Lake area...from dam to dam is the front yard of Austin and every Austinite needs to be involved and have a voice. The Seaholm lease to private offices is to last 20 years. Hopefully by then the region will have matured to the point that several important cultural/attractions will want the building for true great public benefit. Austin apparently is not there yet.

Posted to wrong place and deleted

[austlar1]

I think Austin would generate a lot more credibility as a cultural center if it had the makings of a of a major art museum. A planeterium or aquarium would be nice, but they would be a lot more impressive associated with a fine natural history museum. Austin is now a repository of major wealth. Other great and not so great cities, including Texas cities, have benefitted enormously from the willingness of their wealthiest citizens to provide endowments and incentives that encourage the growth of serious culture in their respective cities. An obvious example that comes to mind on a local level is Fort Worth with no fewer than three very good art museums, a damn good natural history and science museum, and a world class zoo. None of these amenities emerged out of a real estate deal with partners from business. They happened because the citizens with wealth and vision stepped up over the past many decades and made them happen. It is time for Austin's new money elite to do the same thing. Michael Dell or the Butler family can't pay for everything in this town. Where are all the new money billionaires and centi-millionaires? Are they stepping up? Are they collecting art? Do they really care about the city that nourished their good fortune?

[KevinFromTexas]

While we're on the subject of Nimbys...

By the way, I do not feel bad about calling them Nimbys. You can stop something from getting built if you complain enough, but no one can stop people from moving here. Calling them "no-growthers" would suggest they have the ability to stop growth. No one can do that.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=true

Austin City Council approaches vote on overarching growth plan

By Marty Toohey
Published: 8:44 p.m. Sunday, June 10, 2012

The City Council could adopt the plan Thursday. The vote follows a cantankerous two-year drafting process freighted with the hopes, dreams, fears and mistrust of the citizens who were involved in its creation.

"It's an elitist plan," neighborhood activist Jeff Jack said.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...s-for-49m.html

Austin's Capitol Tower sells for $49M

One of CBD’s biggest sales of late signals a coming wave of activity
Austin Business Journal by Jan Buchholz, Staff Writer
Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 5:00am CDT - Last Modified: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 2:21pm CDT

A Massachusetts-based real estate investment firm paid $49 million for a 20-story office building in downtown Austin — Capitol Tower at 206 E. Ninth St.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

While we're on the subject of Nimbys...

By the way, I do not feel bad about calling them Nimbys. You can stop something from getting built if you complain enough, but no one can stop people from moving here. Calling them "no-growthers" would suggest they have the ability to stop growth. No one can do that.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=true

"Central Austin activists successfully pressured the city to reduce the population-density targets in their neighborhoods. This led some East Austin neighborhood leaders to view Imagine Austin as a continuation of social forces that have historically worked in the favor of the neighborhoods west of Interstate 35 to the detriment of East Austin...

"Austin is to be a compact and connected city, yet the ... goals largely excuse the wealthiest and most stable West Austin neighborhood..."

Yeah, this is why I loathe NIMBYs so much. It's always the established, well-to-do folks who are complaining and getting their way. I mean, I'm against NIMBYism in East Austin, too, because really their property values are only going up, so it's not like they're not benefiting from new development. But I just tend to sympathize/empathize with those who are more helpless and it's true that property taxes have the effect of pushing them out.