AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[KevinFromTexas]

Oh, I'm well aware of the CVCs in that area, and I have no beef with them for the most part, save for the I-35 ones since I-35 can die a bloody death, but I'm more commenting on the quality of what was built there under those corridors. And before economic metrics is used as an argument for why we can't have quality there, let's not forget that the Avenue Lofts happened there long ago.

It's just that the argument usually goes to what we could gain, which is great and is a legitimate need (more housing, etc) but there's also the issue of what we might lose. I'm no nimby, but I'd rather raze mediocre buildings nearby and let the unique ones - such as the Avenue Lofts, continue to be.

As for the CVCs, I've already said before that I'm good with them, but there are some that make no sense and it also makes no sense if the governments trusted with maintaining them aren't maintaining them. Since we also have tree ordinances protecting large trees, of which some block the view of the dome, some attention should be paid.

[We vs us]

Omg

EDIT: Also on the same list for total demo -- 1700 and 1704 Lavaca, which is just north of the new Hilton Garden Inn

[The ATX]

If anyone is interested in the MACC's expansion's plans, here's a presentation for the next DC meeting:

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=374646

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by The ATX

If anyone is interested in the MACC's expansion's plans, here's a presentation for the next DC meeting:

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=374646

This actually answers the question we all had about that little unused strip of land outside of 70 Rainey. It's included here as a "welcome garden."

[kingkirbythe....]

Demolition Applications Could Signal Two New Towers in Downtown Austin

https://austin.towers.net/demolition...wntown-austin/

A list of demolition applications under review for consideration at the upcoming January 24 meeting of the city’s Historic Landmark Commission tells the story of two possible new tower developments headed for downtown Austin, if you look closely — actually, the clues are incredibly obvious. Let’s take a peek for ourselves:

307 – 311 East Fifth Street

1700 – 1704 Lavaca Street

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

Demolition Applications Could Signal Two New Towers in Downtown Austin

https://austin.towers.net/demolition...wntown-austin/

A list of demolition applications under review for consideration at the upcoming January 24 meeting of the city’s Historic Landmark Commission tells the story of two possible new tower developments headed for downtown Austin, if you look closely — actually, the clues are incredibly obvious. Let’s take a peek for ourselves:

307 – 311 East Fifth Street

1700 – 1704 Lavaca Street

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

Agreed. Generic infill vs loss of texture. Really Sad.
Plus 2 restaurants that will probably never find downtown locations again.

[dilliam]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Don’t love these buildings going. There’s not going to be anything but brand new high rises in this city. Kind of sad.

I could understand wanting to at least keep the facade of the Vince Young steakhouse building, but these are all D-tier one story brick buildings. I'm completely fine with these getting replaced.

I do always like a good hybrid between the old and new, though. I'd love to see more concepts like the tower that was (is?) planned for the Masonic Lodge.
https://austin.towers.net/[email protected]

[StoOgE]

We should have a 1 in 1 out policy on ground floor retail. You gotta replace whatever you destroy.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

We should have a 1 in 1 out policy on ground floor retail. You gotta replace whatever you destroy.

I agree with this. I don't mind losing the buildings but city should not allow the retail to be lost. We need to keep a healthy mix of residential, office, retail, restaurants, and bars. I also like keeping the warehouse-esque facades in this area.

[kingkirbythe....]

Here’s How Austin’s Mexican American Cultural Center Plans To Double in Size

https://austin.towers.net/heres-how-...ouble-in-size/

A second phase of the MACC’s development has waited in the wings since the structure reached its current size in 2010, and after years of conversation and community engagement, we’ve finally got our first look at what’s in store for the center’s next phase from the design partnership of local firm Miró Rivera and acclaimed Mexican architect Tatiana Bilbao working on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department.

[StoOgE]

I love it.

[migol24]

I could have sworn that we already had some sort of regulation that required new development provide street level retail and interaction.

[H2O]

Nope. The Waterfront Overlay and Downtown Creeks and Parks overlay require 'pedestrian oriented uses' on the ground floor facing open space and it is encouraged for points for density bonus, but it is not required. There are a lot of circumstances where retail just doesn't work well, especially in the changing retail environment we are in. Requiring it outright would result in a lot of vacant ground floor retail space, which would be no better than, if not worse than, well designed facades and spaces.

[KevinFromTexas]

Good architecture attracts eyes, but good uses attract foot traffic and economic activity. Losing an old building sucks, but what would suck more is replacing it with something that tells the greater public they're not welcome, either in its posture to the public right of way, or its lack of public uses because it offers no retail, and the only entrance is into some snazzy lobby where you're not welcome unless you live in the building. We can do better than that.

[Urbannizer]

Texas Bankers Association

[Urbannizer]

This may be physical evidence to support what I mentioned regarding the LZR/bank block-soil testing.

[ahealy]

Oh my. So bye bye Mellow Johnny's? I only support that if it's a handsome motherfucker of a tower.

[kingkirbythe....]

Isn't the mellow johnny's portion of the block under a cvc? Yes, no?

[Urbannizer]

From what I’ve been told Mellow Johnny’s is here to stay. LZR’s fate is uncertain.