AUSTIN | Austin Oaks PUD

[The ATX]

The latest plan has the three tallest buildings capped at 7-stories and placed along MOPAC.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/de...sign-unveiled/

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The latest plan has the three tallest buildings capped at 7-stories and placed along MOPAC.

http://communityimpact.com/austin/de...sign-unveiled/

Personally, outside of downtown, adjacent to downtown districts, and ancillary districts that have the ability to, as they densify, be catalysts for dense, urban, high rise development in a cohesive manner, I prefer density to be primarily in the 3-8 story range. I tend to view scattershot high rises along highway corridors to be unsightly urban blight that generally does not age well. If you aren't willing to go all in on density in a large scale way, human scale density is much more appropriate.

[airwx]

I don't think PUDs are completely dead with this council. CM Pool was supportive of the proposed PUD at the briefing about the Grove at Shoal Creek yesterday morning and it is in her district. I do think this PUD will be a bit tougher sell. They had an open house yesterday evening and another one coming up on Monday evening. More on that here: This article has more on the new proposal: http://communityimpact.com/residents...-pud-proposal/

They've also posted the back up for the Zoning and Platting Commission meeting on Monday for this project: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=233094

[_Matt]

I don't really follow all of the comments about how things appear visually. That can be handled in other ways. The purpose of driving density in this PUD is to align work clusters with transportation nodes to better enable transport, be it auto, bus, or rail.

Also, the walk across MoPac can be improved relatively cheaply. Don't let the forest (land use) be lost for the trees (aesthetics). I think sometimes these small aesthetic details derail the conversation when the solutions are already present in more pedestrian oriented cities.

PS Houston hasn't historically integrated mid-rises well with surrounding environment. There's maybe a sidewalk connecting two fenced parking lots. Nobody is talking about that here.

[wwmiv]

I simply disagree. I think those types of buildings, regardless of the level of integration, are out of scale and out of place.

And don't misunderstand my argument: it has nothing to do with design it has to do with scale. I am opposed to highrises in non-strictly-urban districts because they are not on the same scale as the surrounding area. If you're willing to upgrade a huge swath of land to a strictly urban district, then high rises are fine. But if you're leaving suburbia intact in the surrounding area, a high rise is FULLY inappropriate because it looks out of scale. The design of the tower could be beautiful, and there are plenty of suburban towers in Houston that I think are beautiful. I still wish they had not been built.

In other words, I am in favor of gradually increasing scale across space from suburban to super dense urban nodes. I don't want any sudden shifts in the perceived scale, and building lone or two or three high rises in the middle of suburbia (without a master plan to build more in the future in the immediate vicinity) is misguided and visually chaotic and would remove part of Austin's unique sense of place. We really are one of the only large cities in America that, for the most part, lacks 15+ story suburban office towers scattered along highway corridors and I'd like to keep it that way.

[_Matt]

I see what you mean a bit more about scale and gradual increases. I haven't really considered what it would do to the sense of space.

When I drive down MoPac from far north, there are many commercial midrises (guessing 5-8 floors) along MoPac north and south of the Domain and it definitely makes the area feel more like a business district. It's interesting that it actually gets less dense after 183 until you get to South Austin. It certainly seems like the inner neighborhoods have a privileged position.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by _Matt

I see what you mean a bit more about scale and gradual increases. I haven't really considered what it would do to the sense of space.

When I drive down MoPac from far north, there are many commercial midrises (guessing 5-8 floors) along MoPac north and south of the Domain and it definitely makes the area feel more like a business district. It's interesting that it actually gets less dense after 183 until you get to South Austin. It certainly seems like the inner neighborhoods have a privileged position.

I'm fine with 5-8 stories, maybe even 10. I think 5-8 story buildings are great and I wish we had way more of them. But once you get higher floor counts, it just is so much more disconnected. Now, if you had, ya know, eight to ten 5-8 story buildings clustered around two or three 15+ story buildings, and then transitioning outward to 2-3 level buildings and then suburbia after that, I would be 100% okay with that. Unfortunately, that's impossible in the parcel of land we're discussing.

A equivalent location where I actually do think would be worth a huge fight to densify with maybe one or two 10+ story buildings surrounded by a bunch of 5-8 story buildings to fill up all those empty parking lots at the southeast corner of 2222/MoPac, but... you're right: inner neighborhoods are privileged to a degree in Austin. However, that's the case in a lot of places and simply has to do with the attendant underlying political geography: rich people tend to live in inner ring old build suburbs and rich people tend to hold a lot of political power.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I'm fine with 5-8 stories, maybe even 10. I think 5-8 story buildings are great and I wish we had way more of them. But once you get higher floor counts, it just is so much more disconnected. Now, if you had, ya know, eight to ten 5-8 story buildings clustered around two or three 15+ story buildings, and then transitioning outward to 2-3 level buildings and then suburbia after that, I would be 100% okay with that. Unfortunately, that's impossible in the parcel of land we're discussing.

A equivalent location where I actually do think would be worth a huge fight to densify with maybe one or two 10+ story buildings surrounded by a bunch of 5-8 story buildings to fill up all those empty parking lots at the southeast corner of 2222/MoPac, but... you're right: inner neighborhoods are privileged to a degree in Austin. However, that's the case in a lot of places and simply has to do with the attendant underlying political geography: rich people tend to live in inner ring old build suburbs and rich people tend to hold a lot of political power.

You mean north of the cemetery and south of 2222? Yeah, I can see that.

Though the neighborhoods would probably fight it on issues of transportation. The Mopac/2222 intersection there is already a bit funky, and between shoal creek and the cemetery you'd end up with all the trips entering/exiting onto northland.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You mean north of the cemetery and south of 2222? Yeah, I can see that.

Though the neighborhoods would probably fight it on issues of transportation. The Mopac/2222 intersection there is already a bit funky, and between shoal creek and the cemetery you'd end up with all the trips entering/exiting onto northland.

I agree. It'd require some transportation reconfiguration to work.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Time Warner Cable News
Austin Oaks Park plans endorsed by City Council
http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/new...ity-staff.html

Here's the new plan from that article. The tallest buildings, at 7 stories, would be along Mopac.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment

Time Warner Cable News
Austin Oaks Park plans endorsed by City Council
http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/new...ity-staff.html

Here's the new plan from that article. The tallest buildings, at 7 stories, would be along Mopac.

They seem to have changed/updated the title. Now it's "endorsed by city staff"

I prefer greater density, but at least it's not totally dead.

[Novacek]

New updates (it's not dead yet)

https://communityimpact.com/austin/n...mission-nov-1/

http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boa...tings/54_1.htm

[The ATX]

It has been determined that a council super majority is currently not needed to approve this project. But that could could change by the time the vote takes place later tonight...

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...s-invalidated/

[The ATX]

It passed.

[The ATX]

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

Yay, nothing like downsizing.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

The Statesman has a good article summing up this project:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...Z7HJkQzXg6gUJ/

It's horrifically watered down from the original proposal. We went from around six buildings up to 17-stories along MoPac (which is entirely appropriate for an urban area) to the tallest building being only 9-stories.

Thanks for the link. This project got started well before I became an Austinite, and it's never been quite clear to me what the problem is aside from a kind of remote NIMBYism -- where somewhat distant homeowners project unproven traffic fears onto developments not even in their own hoods.

[drummer]

^^ I've often thought the same thing. I don't truly know what all goes into developments of this magnitude, but I would imagine that the cost of having plans that aren't intended to be used may be too high as well or else (I would think) folks would do just that. It seems only logical, not considering cost.

[Urbannizer]

First rendering for Austin Oaks

[Urbannizer]

https://www.stantec.com/en/projects/...-redevelopment

High and prominent on a western hillside just outside of the city’s core, Austin Oaks is a unique site that weaves together rolling hills with sprawling live oak trees into a beautiful Texas Hill Country landscape. Responding to the continued urban densification of Austin, the redevelopment will turn a 12-building corporate office park into a mixed-use campus that supports the needs of a growing community.

Natural site characteristics like a creek, the rolling hills, trees, wind, and the sun will influence the built environment. By incorporating live oaks and natural plazas with walking paths, building canopies, and man-made patios, our architectural solution will connect the landscape and buildings, creating a tailored design that both reflects and blends into the natural environment.

When complete, the redevelopment will feature 375 multifamily residential units and over 1.3 million square feet of office, retail, restaurant, and mixed-use space, plus surface parking and garages. Centrally located along a major north-south connector, the new development will serve as the entrance to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide an opportunity to integrate with nearby amenities.