AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II

[H2O]

La Zona Rosa closed when Nate Paul bought it.

[The ATX]

Here's the CVC coverage on the block. Travis County property records indicated that WCC still owns the site.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Urbannizer

Austin-based architect

I hope it’s Lake Flato.

[We vs us]

Has Nate Paul ever actually built anything? We know he owns a lot . . . but has he ever developed?

[jkconno]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Closed and covered with graffiti.

absolutely false

[H2O]

If I'm not mistaken, the Little Shoal Creek Tunnel still runs diagonally under that block, roughly parallel to the CVCs. It was partially realigned into the ROW when IBC Bank was built, but I believe it still exists close to where that large tree in the middle of the block is located. I wasn't able to find any drawings with a quick Google search.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by jkconno

absolutely false

I mean, sure. I'm happy to be wrong. Maybe I'll walk over on my lunch break and grab a cup of coffee.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I mean, sure. I'm happy to be wrong. Maybe I'll walk over on my lunch break and grab a cup of coffee.

It did get tagged with graffiti, but I can assure you it's open. I live across the street from it.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by paul78701

It did get tagged with graffiti, but I can assure you it's open. I live across the street from it.

Good to hear. As I said, happy to be wrong. It's a great building, and a cool spot for coffee.

[The ATX]

I don't think we will see any development there as long as WCC owns it. We'll have to wait until a future foreclosure auction puts the site into a real developer's hands.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by The ATX

I don't think we will see any development there as long as WCC owns it. We'll have to wait until a future foreclosure auction puts the site into a real developer's hands.

My hope is that those terrible drive-thru banks on the north side of that block get redeveloped. If assembled, a pretty big building could easily go on that half of the block.

[Maximusx1]

Originally Posted by paul78701

My hope is that those terrible drive-thru banks on the north side of that block get redeveloped. If assembled, a pretty big building could easily go on that half of the block.

Agreed but with the caveat that the oak tree in the middle of that property is humongous and beautiful. That will take some very delicate planning around that tree.

[enragedcamel]

What would it take to get the CVC abolished?

[KevinFromTexas]

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

[valhalla]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I think it's gaslighting to suggest that 35 CVCs in the city's central business district aren't "that much of an encumbrance" to downtown development and density. Sure there are some lots that manage to build around the CVCs but there are other important lots where development is prevented entirely--specifically, the I-35 corridor that covers a vast swath of east downtown. After the recent building boom, we're already starting to run out of places for new development.

You can support the CVCs and believe that the trading development and density for views of the Capitol is worthwhile. But trying to suggest that there aren't significant tradeoffs is simply untrue.

[mercury6]

encumbered views of the capitol isn't that important, certainly not important enough to restrict tower elevations. You want to see the capitol, go to the capitol

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I really wish people would stop suggesting getting rid of the CVCs. They aren't exactly that much of an encumbrance to density or the connective tissues of urbanity. That's much more on developers and architects than a policy. A good example of that is cheap developments being built under them like drive through banks or generic retail. And it's not like there aren't still a ton of places to develop/redevelop in downtown (there are). We also pretty much owe many of our tall buildings to them. I doubt we'd have near the number of the tall buildings we do without them since it's forced many of the towers to be more slender and have setbacks that ultimately forced them to be taller. Furthermore, for the most part, Texas politics is garbage, but I never get tired of seeing the dome through those corridors. It makes downtown feel more unique and also creates some unique opportunities for residential developments to have views that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

i really don't put much stock in those posts. that opinion is only popular on here and commercial real estate boardrooms. average austinite loves the cvc (once you tell them what it is)

we haven't even gotten to the good part yet either, once the density develops in the gaps of the cvc it will create something truly unique that will have been 50 years in the making

however it is obviously a little excessive on the east half of the capitol. won't be sad to see a few of those lifted in the coming decade or two. which i think is fairly likely. maybe if they bury 35 and create a truly walking focused district on top it will be worth preserving the whole eastern view corridor

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by valhalla

I think it's gaslighting to suggest that 35 CVCs in the city's central business district aren't "that much of an encumbrance" to downtown development and density. Sure there are some lots that manage to build around the CVCs but there are other important lots where development is prevented entirely--specifically, the I-35 corridor that covers a vast swath of east downtown. After the recent building boom, we're already starting to run out of places for new development.

You can support the CVCs and believe that the trading development and density for views of the Capitol is worthwhile. But trying to suggest that there aren't significant tradeoffs is simply untrue.

Sure, there are some that could go, as I've said before, but to get rid of them all seems premature and pointless if we're not already utilizing the land we already have and maximizing its usefulness in and around downtown (we aren't).

My biggest gripe with them is the little things. Such as trees not being maintained that grow into them so that they become pointless to have. And, yes, I-35. I-35 despite being old and stubborn is not permanent. I think the best idea there is to allow the I-35 CVCs to go away, save maybe for one that placed atop one of the "cut and cap" parks above I-35 that will most likely be happening.

Austin has density issues, but it's not because of the capitol view corridors. There are way more areas we could work on that would increase density where we want it.

Again, I'm no fan of what happens in the biggest pink building in the state (laughing at that irony) but I do feel that it's important and special enough to be protected in views in at least *some* of the view corridors. It's also really less about the Capitol itself and more about creating some kind of interesting place within some of those corridors. Certainly, any protected views from a park should be off limits to getting the axe or even the street views as long as it's not dangerous, which brings me back to I-35, which never made sense to me. Sure, Texas, put up your fancy electronic billboards reminding people to not text and drive on your phone, but hey, let's create a view corridor so you can gawk at a building for a few seconds as you whiz past, assuming the traffic is actually moving.

[enragedcamel]

Austin is not the only city in North America that has imposed artificial constraints on development due to completely misguided reasons. Vancouver BC, for example, has "view corridors" that were implemented to protect views of the mountains that serve as a backdrop for the city when viewed from certain angles. Similarly, Portland OR has a 450 ft height limit across their entire downtown to preserve views of Mount Hood and the West Hills.

At the end of the day, the effect of such limitations is the same: they limit supply and increase costs of new developments. This greatly favors existing tenants (whose properties appreciate, while they get to also continue to enjoy nice views) while making it more difficult for incoming ones to be able to afford living here.

If our state capitol was some kind of world renowned building or architectural wonder, I'd be more included to say, yes let's keep the CVCs. But it is one of dozens of its kind across the continent. One does not need to constantly see it to be reminded that Austin is the state capital.

[KevinFromTexas]

Worrying about this is silly, though, because downtown encompasses a tiny fraction of the total housing stock in Austin. Even if the view corridors could be done away with it still wouldn't be significantly more. I also suspect that most of the people concerning themselves with it do not live in downtown, which makes them not unlike the nimbies who complain about any development there. There's also the issue of gobbling downtown land with residential when there is also office, hotel, and other uses to consider.