Austin | 415 Colorado | 640 Feet | 47 Floors | Complete

[rayfes]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Four backup files for this project were posted online for Monday's HLC meeting. But there were no renderings. Anyway, there's plenty of history concerning the three buildings proposed for Demo:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=332834

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=332825

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=332836

Is there a reason why the detailed occupancy history starts at '92 and goes backward with only a smattering of what was there after '92 on all of these? As someone that moved here in '92 I (selfishly) like knowing everything that's been there from that point forward

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by rayfes

Is there a reason why the detailed occupancy history starts at '92 and goes backward with only a smattering of what was there after '92 on all of these? As someone that moved here in '92 I (selfishly) like knowing everything that's been there from that point forward

I looked at the same info on three random but recent projects. Two of them also stopped at 1992, and one stopped at 1987. The source for the info on all of them is the Austin History Center and dated 2008. I suspect The History Center had a project to record the history for a lot of properties, but the project ended in the 90s.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[corvairkeith]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Echostatic]

Nice. This is moving along very quickly.

[ATX RE Attorney]

Per the ABJ article today on the BBVA Tower, Tower 5C includes Franks.

[the Genral]

Its a shame if they close this hotdog joint. Its the only place where you can bring your dead dogs, if I read the sign correctly.

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Its a shame if they close this hotdog joint. Its the only place where you can bring your dead dogs, if I read the sign correctly.

Frank's has been closed for awhile.

[The ATX]

The 41 floors and 634' height in the thread title were obtained from the elevations from TOWERS. But since then a floor count of 40 floors and a 655' height were added to the project description on the site plan application.

https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...pertyrsn=91634

[clubtokyo]

I forgot about this tower completely, can’t keep up.