Austin | 305 S. Congress | 6 Towers - 215'/295'/365'/375'/445'/525' | Proposed

[Urbannizer]

Originally Posted by H2O

Apparently, this up for 3rd reading today, if it does not get postponed again. Below is an article summing up the positions:

https://theaustinbulldog.org/ladybir...lqsM9Sk8s6Yq-A

I take it this was postponed yet again.

[H2O]

Yes, that is my understanding. This Council is never in a hurry to make a decision.

[austlar1]

This thing is going to get postponed right into a likely deep economic recession. We may not see any redevelopment of this site for another ten years.

[ILUVSAT]

If I remember correctly (or incorrectly) - I thought the council can only punt things down-the-road a certain number of times before they are forced to make a decision - or one is made automatically.

Anyone know? This it ridiculous. This project is a no-brainer.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

If I remember correctly (or incorrectly) - I thought the council can only punt things down-the-road a certain number of times before they are forced to make a decision - or one is made automatically.

Anyone know? This it ridiculous. This project is a no-brainer.

I know Boards and Commissions are limited in postponements, but I don't know about the CC. They should be.

[clubtokyo]

Ugh so annoying they won’t just approve!

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

If I remember correctly (or incorrectly) - I thought the council can only punt things down-the-road a certain number of times before they are forced to make a decision - or one is made automatically.

Anyone know? This it ridiculous. This project is a no-brainer.

no brainer?

i could think of ten better ideas for austinites than this corporate office park in a single day

[We vs us]

I mean, of course you can think of something better. We probably all can. But in the universe of what's happening now, the option is to either approve the thing and move forward or twiddle around at the edges with more affordable housing. We ain't going backwards from here.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by austlar1

This thing is going to get postponed right into a likely deep economic recession. We may not see any redevelopment of this site for another ten years.

If the economy is going to be that bad construction will never start on this project regardless.

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I mean, of course you can think of something better. We probably all can. But in the universe of what's happening now, the option is to either approve the thing and move forward or twiddle around at the edges with more affordable housing. We ain't going backwards from here.

i've yo-yo'd in my mind on this project but now i'm firmly in the "no" camp. i think we can ask much more of this parcel. this does not raise the bar. all our waterfront development needs to serve a massive public good, this is woefully short.

in many other parts of town, green lighting this is a no brainer. but not here

[StoOgE]

My only real issue with the project is the grid is basically a death trap for peds in an area that needs to not be that.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

My only real issue with the project is the grid is basically a death trap for peds in an area that needs to not be that.

Idk, it seems like a pretty standard grid with pretty decent walkability. Especially compared to the surrounding area which is virtually grid-less.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

i've yo-yo'd in my mind on this project but now i'm firmly in the "no" camp. i think we can ask much more of this parcel. this does not raise the bar. all our waterfront development needs to serve a massive public good, this is woefully short.

in many other parts of town, green lighting this is a no brainer. but not here

I don't completely disagree with you. Some sort of project which "serves a massive 'public' good" would be really nice. However, this is private property. The City of Austin does not own this site.

A private owner is always going to (and should) strive to find the highest and best use for their land. The government would be going down a very dangerous path in telling private owners what to do with their property - especially when they are adhering to current entitlements/guidelines.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

i've yo-yo'd in my mind on this project but now i'm firmly in the "no" camp. i think we can ask much more of this parcel. this does not raise the bar. all our waterfront development needs to serve a massive public good, this is woefully short.

in many other parts of town, green lighting this is a no brainer. but not here

"By use, the proposal is broken up into 1.65 million square feet of residential space, 1.5 million square feet of office space, a 220,000-square-foot hotel and 150,000 square feet of mixed commercial space." -Endeavor

1.65M square feet of residential is pretty great and the % of affordable units is almost guaranteed to increase when the negotiations are all wrapped up. It reminds me a lot of what Two Trees is doing in Williamsburg at the old Domino Sugar factory. Mixed use buildings with private development of parks along the waterfront. It's by-far one of the most loved parks in all of Brooklyn.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

i've yo-yo'd in my mind on this project but now i'm firmly in the "no" camp. i think we can ask much more of this parcel. this does not raise the bar. all our waterfront development needs to serve a massive public good, this is woefully short.

in many other parts of town, green lighting this is a no brainer. but not here

I agree this project could go farther - I'd love to see soemthing like Brickell City Center in Miami, with multi-story shopping & restaurants spanning multiple blocks. We need more retail/shopping options in the downtown area.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I agree this project could go farther - I'd love to see soemthing like Brickell City Center in Miami, with multi-story shopping & restaurants spanning multiple blocks. We need more retail/shopping options in the downtown area.

Those mall-like developments never end up being that great, though. Brickell City Center, Hudson Yards, Brookfield Place, etc. never feel as dynamic as places with street-facing storefronts. I'm right there with you though for rallying for as much retail as possible. I'd just prefer using it to activate the street vs some multi-story mall.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by dilliam

Those mall-like developments never end up being that great, though. Brickell City Center, Hudson Yards, Brookfield Place, etc. never feel as dynamic as places with street-facing storefronts. I'm right there with you though for rallying for as much retail as possible. I'd just prefer using it to activate the street vs some multi-story mall.

I dunno, I was just there and I thought it was pretty awesome. But you're right, a grid of pedestrian streets would be a lot better.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by dilliam

Idk, it seems like a pretty standard grid with pretty decent walkability. Especially compared to the surrounding area which is virtually grid-less.

I meant where barton springs and congress meet. Its now like a 5 way monstrosity.

[The ATX]

I updated the status to "Approved" because the CC approved it on 3rd reading last night.

[atx-adam]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I updated the status to "Approved" because the CC approved it on 3rd reading last night.

The Statesman has details on the council discussions and approval

https://www.statesman.com/story/news...d/69697136007/