AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Look no further than East Austin to find former educational land being used for dense housing. https://austin.towers.net/affordable...-district-site

Austin ISD recognized the value in their underutilized urban land. There's no reason TSD couldn't do the same.

Any way you slice it, the land TSD sits on is worth a lot. If I were one of the TSD powers that be, I would be thinking that it makes sense to have discussions around how to leverage that land value to improve facilities, services, and whatnot. (It's hard to believe that having such discussions haven't at least crossed someone's mind at TSD.)

Those discussions could involve creating a more urban campus integrated into a redevelopment of the current site or using the funds to purchase and develop a site elsewhere. Only TSD could really know or say what would be best for TSD and it's students.

[LiveattheOasis]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

again, concordia, private institution. entirely different ballgame and not relevant to this discussion

although now that you mention it there are many lots around concordia that are beautiful and would be a very suitable place for a new suburban TSD campus IMO.

While my point was more that no one is disenfranchising TSD, I did not realize TSD was state-owned and capable of a different influence.

I'd hope it could maintain it's location and be much more fully integrated into a bigger development that reflects the value and opportunity that land could provide both the school and the community at large.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Any way you slice it, the land TSD sits on is worth a lot. If I were one of the TSD powers that be, I would be thinking that it makes sense to have discussions around how to leverage that land value to improve facilities, services, and whatnot. (It's hard to believe that having such discussions haven't at least crossed someone's mind at TSD.)

Those discussions could involve creating a more urban campus integrated into a redevelopment of the current site or using the funds to purchase and develop a site elsewhere. Only TSD could really know or say what would be best for TSD and it's students.

leverage is not a thing that exists here. they do not have an endowment. they do not pay their own salaries, legally speaking they have no say in their future campus or even the institutions existence.

now of course we want to give them input on future campus and want to keep them around. but from a technical perspective this would be like relocating a public elementary school. a elem school principal or board is not capable of holding leverage as they have no power over any outward facing policy.

[wwmiv]

At the end of the day this is all theoretical even if I’m of a particular middle path opinion:

• the entire school grounds should remain in public hands;
• a massive reinvestment in the school in tandem with the population growth that we’ve experienced and will experience—this doesn’t necessarily need to mean educational opportunities, but could mean deaf cultural institutions and other keystones and services for that community;
• land fronting South Congress and South First should have added school buildings that include leasable ground level retail fronting those corridors perhaps even without thru-access to the main campus for security reasons;

I have the same opinion regarding the old mental health campus on the northside as well. Tax receipts are not a good enough argument for selling off public land. Additional housing units are not as well. In fact, maintaining publicly owned land as publicly owned as we densify is important because it allows the government to physically scale the services it offers as the population grows. There are better ways for these properties to be a good neighbor while also ensuring we have the ability to grow necessary bureaucratic capacity.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

leverage is not a thing that exists here. they do not have an endowment. they do not pay their own salaries, legally speaking they have no say in their future campus or even the institutions existence.

now of course we want to give them input on future campus and want to keep them around. but from a technical perspective this would be like relocating a public elementary school. a elem school principal or board is not capable of holding leverage as they have no power over any outward facing policy.

This is… not a reflection of our public policy process at all. Any and all public policy movements reflect a variety of input and it isn’t just from our elected representatives. Our elected representatives almost always seek input from stakeholders in the form of committee meetings, other official work, during fundraising, in their offices, in private negotiations, and in their informal networks. Deaf people, their proxies and cultural institutions, the administration of the school, faculty and staff, parents, and others are almost certainly going to be given a huge voice in the process by our elected officials themselves in any future planning for the site.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

While my point was more that no one is disenfranchising TSD, I did not realize TSD was state-owned and capable of a different influence.

I'd hope it could maintain it's location and be much more fully integrated into a bigger development that reflects the value and opportunity that land could provide both the school and the community at large.

no harm done.

for a long time i also thought it was a private or semi private institution that served a couple thousand students. only realized 5 or so years ago it was fully public and a k-12 school that serves less than 500 kids.

imo if they served students beyond grade 12 i could see why they would value that location but i think they would prefer to keep a suburban campus as it creates a bit of a bubble. which is totally fine but i think having a 68 acre bubble sitting between s first and s congress is harming the community. many great places for a future campus and many opportunities for future austin if we can maximize the value of that land

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is… not a reflection of our public policy process at all. Any and all public policy movements reflect a variety of input and it isn’t just from our elected representatives. Our elected representatives almost always seek input from stakeholders in the form of committee meetings, other official work, during fundraising, in their offices, in private negotiations, and in their informal networks. Deaf people, their proxies and cultural institutions, the administration of the school, faculty and staff, and others are almost certainly going to be given a huge voice in the process by our elected officials themselves in any future planning for the site.

"given" being the operative word here

and my comment was addressing the concept of leverage being held by TSD. influence DNE leverage.

to be clear i give a very low chance of the lot being repurposed in the near or intermediate future. but it's a conversation i'd like to see raised by the community.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

"given" being the operative word here

That betrays an incredibly fatalistic view of the process. The voters expect and demand that they be given voice in the process, and so they are.

[Armybrat]

Austin does not need generic beehive boxes on every large plot of land in the inner city.
We are not NYC.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

and my comment was addressing the concept of leverage being held by TSD. influence DNE leverage.

You surely understand the point I was trying to make. You're taking it too literally. Extra points aren't given out for trying to nitpick every word in people's comments.

[ohhey]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

Austin does not need generic beehive boxes on every large plot of land in the inner city.
We are not NYC.

This is the quintessential NIMBY straw man.

[Armybrat]

Originally Posted by ohhey

This is the quintessential NIMBY straw man.

Just the opinion of a resident since 1959.

I like the redevelopment of downtown with all the high rises, but please spare the old neighborhoods.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

Just the opinion of a resident since 1959.

I like the redevelopment of downtown with all the high rises, but please spare the old neighborhoods.

These towers might as well be downtown and will be 10x better than the blight that currently sits on that site. More homes (condos, apartments), the better!

I welcome any project that fosters a more dynamic Austin!

[wwmiv]

Delete. Apologies.

[jake.robs]

Clearly, the topic of this thread has gone so off the rails that people are forgetting the proposal is for 500 S. Congress, not the TSD site. The current state of the actual site in question is most definitely 80s suburban office campus blight.

Can we get back to the topic of the proposal by Related? I'd like to stop getting excited that the project is moving forward every time I log in, only to see more arguing over an adjacent lot.....

[Jdawgboy]

To be fair dilliam specifically said on that site. He was not referring to the school, only the building that sits on the site of redevelopment. Ergos not withstanding. Let's calm down a bit...

[ahealy]

What is going on with our night lighting right now? I know it's my OCD and some of you can relate ...

Here's a rundown of what I saw:

• Hyatt Centric's crown is flickering like a strobe light
• The Capital dome is only lit if you're looking at it from Congress
• 6X still has areas of the top and vertical strips that are burnt out/uneven
• The tacky random 10 ft wide Christmas lights are still on the Alexan crown (wtf is that even)

From my understanding, this just boils down to the facilities teams within each building? I just wish we could look a little more world class in this way. It's the little details, ya know?

[Green Country]

2nd quarter 2024 apartment statistics per Transwestern:

44 buildings. 7,409 units. 13.1% vacancy. Trailing 12 month absorption: 519

[Green Country]

Office market stats for Austin CBD, per Transwestern, 2nd Quarter, 2024:
Total occupancy: 68.3% (down from 71.4% Jan 1)
Net absorption for the quarter: 383,117 square feet
Current inventory: 17,997,189 square feet
Under construction: 1,819,285 square feet

Office market stats for Austin CBD, per Transwestern, 1st Quarter, 2024:
Total occupancy: 69.3%
Net absorption for the quarter: Negative 197,571 square feet
Current inventory: 17,500, 577 square feet
Under construction: 1,659,680 square feet

year-end 2023:
Total occupancy: 71.4%.
Net absorption CY 2023: Negative 25,631 square feet.
Current Inventory: 17,267,751 square feet
Under Construction: 2,127,105 square feet (12.3% increase in supply).

[IluvATX]

Obviously clickbait, but Austin is the only city in the US on this ramshackle list of the world’s best cities for nightlife.
https://www.timeout.com/travel/world...-for-nightlife