Austin | 415 Colorado | 640 Feet | 47 Floors | T/O

[KevinFromTexas]

I sort of question the logic and argument to be made for what might be a historic building when it is gutted and then made into a modern establishment, such as a bar or night club with fancy lights and modern music that doesn't exactly jive with the history of the place. I think some of those buildings have long since seen their historical period come and go, and the lives they're leading now would be indistinguishable from yesteryear. The same argument I'm making can be applied to the Rainey Street area, where even as the houses remain, their look, feel and use differ greatly from their original use. It isn't a neighborhood anymore, just a place with some buildings that used to house families where people now throwback drinks without any clue as to the history of the place.

[WhiskeyTango]

City is recommending they preserve 2 of the 3:

Lonesome / Chinatown (419 Colorado) -- Not historic / release demo permit

Searsuckers (415 Colorado) -- Historic / encourage rehab & adaptive re-use

• "Staff has evaluated this building for designation as a historic landmark and has determined that while the building may not rise to the level of an individual landmark, it is an integral part of the context of the Warehouse District, a branded destination in downtown Austin."
• "The building is important to the context of the greater Warehouse District, but probably does not have community value in and of itself."

Walmart Tech (409 Colorado) -- Historic / encourage rehab & adaptive re-use

• "Staff believes that despite the changes to the building, the building has architectural significance."
• "While none of the businesses that used this building qualify as individually significant, the use of the building as a garage and later warehouse indicates its significance to the business district in downtown Austin."

[the Genral]

I have been thinking the exact same thing for quite a while Kevin.

[KevinFromTexas]

Of course, I have nothing against the buildings or their uses, and I'm even on the side of preserving them, I just question the argument to be made about them being historic when they don't resemble what they once were. I would rather they be kept and let the vacant lots and truly non historic (not as old) buildings surrounding them go away.

[corvairkeith]

I think a tower like this would be great on the old Post Office block.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

This... couldn't agree more:

You know... things like... soul.... heart.... depth.... texture....the things that brought folks to the area in the first place.

"Staff has evaluated this building for designation as a historic landmark and has determined that while the building may not rise to the level of an individual landmark, it is an integral part of the context of the Warehouse District, a branded destination in downtown Austin".

I mean, I love history....but these buildings brought folks in for oil changes and tires, then real estate and insurance.
They were under utilized till people came for sushi at Kenichi and (martinis and manicures) at Girard's bar, Cuba Libre.

The facades have been changed who knows how many times. So what is it we REALLY will miss, which facade? The NYT did a great piece on this a few years ago, I wish I could remember the article title for the link, that helped me understand this phenomenon. NYC in the 70's had high crime, high unemployment, young people were broke, it was a city in steep decline...yet people pine for those days of the dirty, gritty Big Apple. The article postulated that despite the facts that (if they bought property) they probably made a FORTUNE, the city is cleaner, jobs are plentiful, crime is all time low, drug use is way down, what people really missed from the 70's........was their youth.

Austin just doesn't have history like SF, Chicago, Philly, Portland, Boston, or even San Antonio and Galveston. Austin doesn't have "history" it has "nostalgia". We all pine for our past. Sure the Warehouse District was cool, but was IT cool?, or were we young and in love with the city/our lives/our lovers/our youth? I believe as people age, this kind of thinking contributes to NIMBY's squawking about how we can never change the "character" of a neighborhood. NIMBY's will never define the word "character", just like the historic commission will not define which facade was/is the "integral part of the context" of the district. It's impossible, because it's different to each person even at different times in their lives.

Remember the reporter who lamented the destruction of the character of SOCO because the Baptist Church decided to allow the development of their vacant land for a hotel....which wiped out the food trucks that had been there for 5 years or so...? That was the when the Austin preservationists "jumped the shark" for me, it's become hard to take it seriously. Now we dipping the Overton house in amber? Does the city plan to pay his descendants the market value for it, I doubt it. Overton was cool to be sure, but HISTORIC, no. Though he does have one of my favorite quotes of all time....said the 112 year old vet "Just keep living, don't die.."

We are a young town...lots of towns have history, we don't really. It's what makes us unique. I love it.

For the record, I've spent more time in the Warehouse district than I can even fathom. From Ruta Mya, to the Lizard Lounge, Mezzaluna, to that bar with the sharks in the floor, to OCH, Fado, the list goes on and on. I love that district, it will forever be where I partied HARD from early 90s to now. I met my wife at Lavaca Street. But history is history, and these buildings are NOT historic, even if I wish they were.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

I think a tower like this would be great on the old Post Office block.

I think any tower would be great on the old Post Office block.

FTFY

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyTango

Walmart Tech (409 Colorado) -- Historic / encourage rehab & adaptive re-use

• "Staff believes that despite the changes to the building, the building has architectural significance."
• "While none of the businesses that used this building qualify as individually significant, the use of the building as a garage and later warehouse indicates its significance to the business district in downtown Austin."

I would say the very first Alamo Drafthouse would qualify as a significant business

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Of course, I have nothing against the buildings or their uses, and I'm even on the side of preserving them, I just question the argument to be made about them being historic when they don't resemble what they once were. I would rather they be kept and let the vacant lots and truly non historic (not as old) buildings surrounding them go away.

I always appreciate your balanced perspective Kevin....
Let me make these points to hopefully help a perspective for maintaining at least some of these structures:

Simply put: Intervention happens when it can. We have had a unique development pattern in Austin that blossomed late. In most other large cities, that were as small as Austin was in the 1920s, these buildings would be long gone. Most such areas so close the city core where mowed under decades ago. OR were isolated immigrate or marginalized neighborhoods ( Over the Rhine in Cincinnati, Ybor in Tampa to name a few.... yes those were more residential oriented, but hopefully the point is still relevant)

Realize that even 30, 60, 90 years ago the building in the warehouse district were still warehouses/garages/small stores .... A shell that had a historical facade and scale.... but nothing much inside. It's what allowed clubs/theatre/ restaurants to adapt them so readily especially in the 80s.( we all know from there what happened... It was an ignored area that became popular quickly with an identity as a small historical entertainment district.) A point that can't; be made enough: why would any businessman eliminate the attraction people had to a location in the first place? seems self defeating..... or simple generic thinking.

I also feel that is we applied a "what's left"
standard across the board, we might as well just mow down all of 4th Street now.... that seems to be the end run of all this: How to maintain at least 4th street.

I'll still stand that the Warehouse district has a unique urban character that grows more unique with each high rise built around it. The fabric of the city is well served by the diversity of design, density and character. Seems like the only folks who are served by tearing them down are developers. Any resident I've talked to in the neighborhood (or frequents the warehouse district) understands the value.

While I live in a high-rise, I work to not let my HOBBY of seeing new buildings ignore what we are pushing aside for the sake of "Big". It's not just about bigger toys. There are still plenty of places to be built on that are empty or far less "historical". And believe me the more we go "UP" And "OUT" the more people will seek scale and texture relief. Anyone who has lived in a city core will know that.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Austin just doesn't have history like SF, Chicago, Philly, Portland, Boston, or even San Antonio and Galveston. Austin doesn't have "history" it has "nostalgia". We all pine for our past.

And Austin will never have history and only ever have nostalgia the more buildings it chooses to not preserve. Preservation is what creates a sense of history.

[the Genral]

Urbancore, nice, insightful post. As a survivor of 1970s NYC, you are spot on, and while I don't pine for all the bad things about it in the 70s, I miss the adrenaline rush. I got my street smarts from hanging out there when you literally saw a crime almost every hour of everyday.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And Austin will never have history and only ever have nostalgia the more buildings it chooses to not preserve. Preservation is what creates a sense of history.

Exactly, it creates a “sense” of history. But that doesn’t make a building “historic” as defined by Sadowski and the gang or me. Every building has got history. Should we save all the old Diamond Shamrocks and Pep Boys? These buildings were auto repair shops and tire stores, not where Cesar Chavez held meetings, nor were they designed by FLW.

To be glib, the closest to an historical moment for these properties might be a commemorative plaque noting “It is on this spot Leslie was arrested by APD for the 100th time for pissing in the alley”. If someone still has one of his poster boards from the side of the grocery cart he used to push around downtown, you could quote his rambling diatribe (I know, I know....look who’s talkin) of the APD as inspirational quote for the plaque. Damn I would love to have one of those framed in my house. Miss that crazy bastard.

Austin, like other cities, will have history when it MAKES history. Historic is not just old shit. You have to earn it.

That said our best days lay ahead of us. Austin has a dark dark past, not much to be proud of, historically speaking....starting with the Clarksville Freedman-town.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I mean, I love history....but these buildings brought folks in for oil changes and tires, then real estate and insurance.
They were under utilized till people came for sushi at Kenichi and (martinis and manicures) at Girard's bar, Cuba Libre.

The facades have been changed who knows how many times. So what is it we REALLY will miss, which facade? The NYT did a great piece on this a few years ago, I wish I could remember the article title for the link, that helped me understand this phenomenon. NYC in the 70's had high crime, high unemployment, young people were broke, it was a city in steep decline...yet people pine for those days of the dirty, gritty Big Apple. The article postulated that despite the facts that (if they bought property) they probably made a FORTUNE, the city is cleaner, jobs are plentiful, crime is all time low, drug use is way down, what people really missed from the 70's........was their youth.

Austin just doesn't have history like SF, Chicago, Philly, Portland, Boston, or even San Antonio and Galveston. Austin doesn't have "history" it has "nostalgia". We all pine for our past. Sure the Warehouse District was cool, but was IT cool?, or were we young and in love with the city/our lives/our lovers/our youth? I believe as people age, this kind of thinking contributes to NIMBY's squawking about how we can never change the "character" of a neighborhood. NIMBY's will never define the word "character", just like the historic commission will not define which facade was/is the "integral part of the context" of the district. It's impossible, because it's different to each person even at different times in their lives.

Remember the reporter who lamented the destruction of the character of SOCO because the Baptist Church decided to allow the development of their vacant land for a hotel....which wiped out the food trucks that had been there for 5 years or so...? That was the when the Austin preservationists "jumped the shark" for me, it's become hard to take it seriously. Now we dipping the Overton house in amber? Does the city plan to pay his descendants the market value for it, I doubt it. Overton was cool to be sure, but HISTORIC, no. Though he does have one of my favorite quotes of all time....said the 112 year old vet "Just keep living, don't die.."

We are a young town...lots of towns have history, we don't really. It's what makes us unique. I love it.

For the record, I've spent more time in the Warehouse district than I can even fathom. From Ruta Mya, to the Lizard Lounge, Mezzaluna, to that bar with the sharks in the floor, to OCH, Fado, the list goes on and on. I love that district, it will forever be where I partied HARD from early 90s to now. I met my wife at Lavaca Street. But history is history, and these buildings are NOT historic, even if I wish they were.

Guess we want different things. Thats fine... I want more texture in my downtown neighborhood. Along with well developed and designed new. (Probably why my Time in NYC was/and now again is more Hell's Kitchen. Not 5 blocks east.) This is not either/or.... or as quick as "NIMBY" baiting. To easy and dismissive. I for one work to find a great balance in my downtown neighborhood in the now, not in the past. So there is a big middle ground that I think has to be considered. Not armchair urbanism nor equally dismissive NIMBY quotes.... But realistic livable city. Not just new boys toys for tall sake. But thoughtful blend of urban textures. I mean hell , I rarely go to 4th street anymore even thought it's only a few blocks away. (Spend most of my time in a LYFT heading east.) So... for me , I'm advocating for as much texture and depth as we can have.The opposite is just to find a new generic city. . .... See more thoughts in response to Kevin below. And cheers. .

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Guess we want different things. Thats fine... I want more texture in my downtown neighborhood. Along with well developed and designed new. (Probably why my Time in NYC was/and now again is more Hell's Kitchen. Not 5 blocks east.) This is not either/or.... or as quick as "NIMBY" baiting. To easy and dismissive. I for one work to find a great balance in my downtown neighborhood in the now, not in the past. So there is a big middle ground that I think has to be considered. Not armchair urbanism nor equally dismissive NIMBY quotes.... But realistic livable city. Not just new boys toys for tall sake. But thoughtful blend of urban textures. I mean hell , I rarely go to 4th street anymore even thought it's only a few blocks away. (Spend most of my time in a LYFT heading east.) So... for me , I'm advocating for as much texture and depth as we can have.The opposite is just to find a new generic city. . .... See more thoughts in response to Kevin below. And cheers. .

I agree with everything you said except that we want different things and certainly didn’t mean to dismiss, if that’s the way you took something I said. I too LOVE texture. I just don’t think we should force the preservation of gas stations or their facades to get there. I think most all uses should be “mixed use” and that the city should encourage well designed highly texturized streets downtown or in neighborhoods for that matter. It’s why I built in Zilker, nothing is alike...texture.

Cheers to you too and Happy Holidayz.

[ohhey]

Many cities that have what some of you are characterizing as actual history also have preservation standards that take into account architecture style and vocabulary as well as building techniques and materials. History and historic preservation aren't limited what happened inside the building in the past. The edifice itself can serve as a historical marker for the way things looked and the way things were built in the past.

But I've given up hope that Austin will ever take this issue seriously. What bothers me now is that we're not building anything presently that has a clear and well-executed architecture style. Austin is very much in the quantity over quality mode of building these days.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by ohhey

But I've given up hope that Austin will ever take this issue seriously. What bothers me now is that we're not building anything presently that has a clear and well-executed architecture style. Austin is very much in the quantity over quality mode of building these days.

I've been saying this for years. But I think things will be getting better and depending on individual tastes they already are.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by ohhey

Many cities that have what some of you are characterizing as actual history also have preservation standards that take into account architecture style and vocabulary as well as building techniques and materials. History and historic preservation aren't limited what happened inside the building in the past. The edifice itself can serve as a historical marker for the way things looked and the way things were built in the past.

But I've given up hope that Austin will ever take this issue seriously. What bothers me now is that we're not building anything presently that has a clear and well-executed architecture style. Austin is very much in the quantity over quality mode of building these days.

Oh, we definitely have it and a lot of good work is being done. A huge problem here is that the NIMBYs have somewhat hijacked preservation in the attempt of making everything that's 50+ yrs old historic including track homes, all in the hopes of preserving single family structures.

[clayton_rogue]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I mean, I love history....but these buildings brought folks in for oil changes and tires, then real estate and insurance.
They were under utilized till people came for sushi at Kenichi and (martinis and manicures) at Girard's bar, Cuba Libre.

The facades have been changed who knows how many times. So what is it we REALLY will miss, which facade? The NYT did a great piece on this a few years ago, I wish I could remember the article title for the link, that helped me understand this phenomenon. NYC in the 70's had high crime, high unemployment, young people were broke, it was a city in steep decline...yet people pine for those days of the dirty, gritty Big Apple. The article postulated that despite the facts that (if they bought property) they probably made a FORTUNE, the city is cleaner, jobs are plentiful, crime is all time low, drug use is way down, what people really missed from the 70's........was their youth.

Austin just doesn't have history like SF, Chicago, Philly, Portland, Boston, or even San Antonio and Galveston. Austin doesn't have "history" it has "nostalgia". We all pine for our past. Sure the Warehouse District was cool, but was IT cool?, or were we young and in love with the city/our lives/our lovers/our youth? I believe as people age, this kind of thinking contributes to NIMBY's squawking about how we can never change the "character" of a neighborhood. NIMBY's will never define the word "character", just like the historic commission will not define which facade was/is the "integral part of the context" of the district. It's impossible, because it's different to each person even at different times in their lives.

Remember the reporter who lamented the destruction of the character of SOCO because the Baptist Church decided to allow the development of their vacant land for a hotel....which wiped out the food trucks that had been there for 5 years or so...? That was the when the Austin preservationists "jumped the shark" for me, it's become hard to take it seriously. Now we dipping the Overton house in amber? Does the city plan to pay his descendants the market value for it, I doubt it. Overton was cool to be sure, but HISTORIC, no. Though he does have one of my favorite quotes of all time....said the 112 year old vet "Just keep living, don't die.."

We are a young town...lots of towns have history, we don't really. It's what makes us unique. I love it.

For the record, I've spent more time in the Warehouse district than I can even fathom. From Ruta Mya, to the Lizard Lounge, Mezzaluna, to that bar with the sharks in the floor, to OCH, Fado, the list goes on and on. I love that district, it will forever be where I partied HARD from early 90s to now. I met my wife at Lavaca Street. But history is history, and these buildings are NOT historic, even if I wish they were.

Well said urbancore. Well said.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

the more we go "UP" And "OUT" the more people will seek scale and texture relief. Anyone who has lived in a city core will know that.

This... this is what will continue to happen. It's the human element that gets ignored, or only found again after it's too late.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by zrx299

This... this is what will continue to happen. It's the human element that gets ignored, or only found again after it's too late.

With all due respect, I don't understand what you mean. NYC has plenty of "human element" and we are no where near (and never could be) the type of skyscraper filled city of NYC.

If by "human element" you mean shorter buildings....I mean ok. But at the end of the day, I believe in 2 principals in this regard.
1. the owner of the land retains the right to get the highest and best use of their property. We should hinder this right rarely and with very good reason
2. downtown is where skyscrapers belong...build em all I say. I mean we are talking about a downtown city here. I think NYC is way more human scale than typical American neighborhoods that are "car scale".

If you built out every sqft you could in the downtown core to its highest, densest allowable limit, you would have
1. A VERY cool "proper" city, with a fraction of the density or area of NYC or Chicago....etc.
2. For several reasons Austin will always have smaller buildings
a. view corridors
b. established legitimate historical zoning (Dirty 6th for instance)
c. some owners just don't care to develop...or they play the waiting game to get more $ out of their assest when they sell in 20-50 years. I know of a couple of owners like this. Not everyone wants to build or sell to developers. Look at the Le Bare on Riverside, been sitting, for shit... like 20 years now?
d. for financial reasons, some owners can't sell. Sounds weird, but if they are over leveraged for instance, it may not make sense for them to sell and they can't afford to develop due to the fact they are over leveraged. A sale won't leave them with enough left over to yield the type of cash flow they currently receive and are accustom to. I've seen this on a smaller scale with 10-20 unit apartment complexes. They want to sell but they can't make it make financial sense.
e. to be blunt, laziness. You would be shocked how many people get mailbox money from their very expensive (sometimes dilapidated) property and are not inclined to even look at offers. They are just too busy or don't care, don't need the money.
3. More units for closet urban-ists to live which helps take pressure off of suburbs. The ONLY solution to a lack of housing is to BUILD more housing of ALL types.


All that said, I think good design should absolutely be baked into all our COA design codes. I hate when buildings don't have shops of all types or they are dead zones at night, for instance. I certainly don't have a problem with codes that dictate all Austin skyscrapers interact with the people at human scale. I learned that from Dean Speck's class back in early 90's. He was in the middle of designing AIBA at the time and was so pumped to show his work as he progressed. He touted human scale and it shows in his work, except for the Convention Center.....of course. Nobody's perfect. (I don't think he had a choice on that one)

I also LOVE history. I think we should and we do preserve the buildings that are ACTUALLY historic as defined as....either it must have been tied to a historic event/person, designed by someone important, etc.

The problem I've seen, is the HLC is used to help VERY rich people in Old West Austin pay less in property tax by designating their home as a "contributing whatever the fuck" of Pemberton Heights. And even worse, it is used to effectively STEAL the value of poor homeowners in East Austin when the city slaps a Historical designation on a home the owner didn't ask for, all because the previous owner was one of the few black doctors in Austin. Both of these scenarios are supported by all the Tovopool-ites, because they know best. But mainly, I see the HLC as a great example of the "when you are a hammer...everything is a nail". Sadowski doesn't want ANYTHING torn down...no shit, not kidding.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news...arly-thwarted/

That immediately devalues the home by $100's of thousands of dollars. Morons....all of them.

Historic is not just how something makes you feel, though it often evokes strong emotions, it's much more than that.
NPS did a good job helping me define what I think is worth preserving....

https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments.htm