Domain/North Austin Development Updates

[The ATX]

That would be Domain 10 and Domain 11. Domain 11 is of course the one further along.

[lynmark]

There are 3 hotels that are in the works no far from the intersection of Braker Lane and Burnet Road.

1. Towne Place Suites at Braker Lane - 2237 Braker Lane (also frontage on Kramer Lane)
City of Austin Permit/Case 2018-061765 SP – Status In Review
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...errsn=11916734

2. Hilton Garden Inn - 2600 Brockton Drive
City of Austin Permit/Case 2017-120738 SP – Status Waiting on Legal
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...errsn=11796197

3. Element Hotel - 10728 Burnet Road (this was referenced in an earlier post on Jan 28, 2019 from murfnut in a response to a picture from zrx299 on Jan 28, 2019). This is a proposed 6 story 155 room hotel with a parking structure.
City of Austin Permit/Case 2017-133159 SP – Status Approved and Released
https://abc.austintexas.gov/web/perm...errsn=11810832

[Armybrat]

Probably talking about hobos, bums, panhandlers, gangbangers, hookers, & the like.

[We vs us]

Really, the problem is that the Domain connects to, but isn't in the actual city, so you have to treat it like a mall. Drive to it in your car. Park. Mall walk. Get an Orange Julius, then hike back to your car.

If it were an actual neighborhood, like in other cities, traffic would go through it, not around it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Really, the problem is that the Domain connects to, but isn't in the actual city, so you have to treat it like a mall. Drive to it in your car. Park. Mall walk. Get an Orange Julius, then hike back to your car.

If it were an actual neighborhood, like in other cities, traffic would go through it, not around it.

Maybe the design was on purpose to keep traffic /out/.

And point of fact: it is in city limits. Ergo, it is in the actual city.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And point of fact: it is in city limits. Ergo, it is in the actual city.

Well sure. I don't dispute that. But it's been designed to be its own inward looking node. Some of that is just where the plot is in relation to the city's own infrastructure, but it's also been built with, shall we say, a suburbanite's concern for internal (traffic) control.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Well sure. I don't dispute that. But it's been designed to be its own inward looking node. Some of that is just where the plot is in relation to the city's own infrastructure, but it's also been built with, shall we say, a suburbanite's concern for internal (traffic) control.

You see that as a bad thing, but many people might see that as a positive. It means less vehicles traveling past residents’ windows at night. It means less noise pollution so people can sleep easier. It means - if combined with adequate internal pedestrian infrastructure (which exists, the problem is how poorly the internal pedestrian infrastructure interacts with and connects to the external pedestrian infrastructure) - a safer pedestrian experience as well. I’m sorry, but all of the points y’all see as demerits could actually be interpreted as a positive. Cities should not cater to only ONE urban development framework/mindset, but to many types of urbanity so that we can be inclusive of all types of people and the environments in which they’d prefer to live, work, and play. If you don’t like the design of this area, you should choose to live, work, and play elsewhere. There’s still a market - clearly - for this variety of urban infrastructure and this variety happens to not exist elsewhere in the city and its surroundings so let it exist here.

Every major city has something akin to this style of urban development at some scale. The Galleria and La Cantera are two examples in Texas alone and they’re doing just fine and don’t see anywhere near the kind of vitriolic hate directed by some Austinites towards the Domain. It borders on NIMBY behavior.

In other words: stop finding minor things to complain about just for the sake of complaining. It isn’t your cup of tea, we get it, but that doesn’t mean it is intrinsically a negative space.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Really, the problem is that the Domain connects to, but isn't in the actual city, so you have to treat it like a mall. Drive to it in your car. Park. Mall walk. Get an Orange Julius, then hike back to your car.

If it were an actual neighborhood, like in other cities, traffic would go through it, not around it.

It's funny. When I worked downtown, this is what I did: drove to it in my car. Parked. Walked. Worked. Got a taco or a drink, then hiked back (to 15th street) to my car.

Traffic goes through downtown and traffic goes through the Domain. Neither are the best place to drive, however. As it should be.

I think the private property argument is the best argument. But, in the end, that's just words on a piece of paper. To the eye, they look the same. And I'm sure one day in the future it will be parceled out and the streets will be public just like anywhere else.

The company I work for likes to have offices in urban environments. And it's no coincidence that the two places they have offices in Austin are 6th Street and the Domain.

ergo, The Domain is urban. It's the city.

[lynmark]

It is my understanding that the Domain is in the city limits of Austin, but the streets are private and not public streets. These private street signs are noted with a blue background instead of a green. I have always wondered what rules there would be if traffic lights were put up in the Domain since it is private property.

[gabetx]

Originally Posted by lynmark

It is my understanding that the Domain is in the city limits of Austin, but the streets are private and not public streets. These private street signs are noted with a blue background instead of a green. I have always wondered what rules there would be if traffic lights were put up in the Domain since it is private property.

Simple, police don't enforce traffic laws on private property. If you run a stop sign in the Domain in front of an officer, they can't, (or shouldn't), pull you over. The same goes for any shopping center with stop signs, or other traffic signals, (speed limits, turn only's, yields, ect.), on private property.

If someone is driving with willful and wanton disregard for the public, then it is reckless driving and that can be enforced. So... two or more of the following: unsafe speed, running numerous stop signs, cutting cars off, driving on the wrong side of the road or on a sidewalk, ect.

[Riverranchdrone]

on the corners of a few of the intersections at the domain they have already installed the infrastructure of traffic lights.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by gabetx

Simple, police don't enforce traffic laws on private property. If you run a stop sign in the Domain in front of an officer, they can't, (or shouldn't), pull you over. The same goes for any shopping center with stop signs, or other traffic signals, (speed limits, turn only's, yields, ect.), on private property.

If someone is driving with willful and wanton disregard for the public, then it is reckless driving and that can be enforced. So... two or more of the following: unsafe speed, running numerous stop signs, cutting cars off, driving on the wrong side of the road or on a sidewalk, ect.

With the proviso that stop signs on private property abutting public land are enforceable.

[drummer]

^ I was thinking wwmiv's point as well, given that the stop signs were probably required by the city with traffic flow, etc., as everything was planned. A private-private intersection is a different situation, as far as I understand it.

[wwmiv]

Thinking that you should be able to park next to your destination is not an urban mindset, it is a suburban one. Expecting any urban area to accommodate that mindset is ridiculous. That’s like asking urban buildings to, I don’t know, have massive parking podiums under every single tower... something most users here complain about ad nauseum.

We can’t have it both ways. Either we design spaces for cars or we design spaces for people.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

...massive parking podiums under every single tower... something most users here complain about ad nauseum.

We can’t have it both ways. Either we design spaces for cars or we design spaces for people.

Having first floor retail and massive parking podiums above, in downtown Austin does have it both ways to a certain extent. Just as the Domain is a quasi urban area in a suburban Austin area.

[murfnut]

The problem is that the land was an old IBM plant that was started in the 60s on a farm out in the middle of no where. The roads within IBM did not follow a grid pattern. Instead IBM had this outer circle and ball fields and other stuff, no real pattern. The domain then worked with what was already existing. The first section is where the ballfields were and second section was on the other side of the power lines. The rockrose/whole foods area was where the big manufacturing section was.

Also 045 because of its location prevented a straight road from braker into the domain, instead we get this odd turn after entering.

Hopefully when the bulk of Robinson Ranch gets built, it will have a nice grid pattern since they have a blank slate for most of the land.

By the way I have worked here for 30 years before 183 was a highway and mopac stopped at 183. I remember when IBM sold the land. The original plan for the domain changed after the high tech bust of 2000. It was originally going to just be a tech center. That is why its called the Domain. Then it was changed into a high end shopping area with apartments, then as the economy took off especially with high tech and the new office buildings became the big thing. WFoods was going to be a tower similar to the one on 6th street.

[AusTex]

Originally Posted by murfnut

Hopefully when the bulk of Robinson Ranch gets built, it will have a nice grid pattern since they have a blank slate for most of the land.

It has been my understanding that the family is not really big on the "planning" thing, as I has gathered over the last quarter century. They are content in selling off pieces as time goes by rather than plan. The COA has approached them in the past without much success. I hope they are now working with the city, however I have not heard that.

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by AusTex

It has been my understanding that the family is not really big on the "planning" thing, as I has gathered over the last quarter century. They are content in selling off pieces as time goes by rather than plan. The COA has approached them in the past without much success. I hope they are now working with the city, however I have not heard that.

Actually, the Robinson family has been working with the City for years. In 2004 they signed a long-term (45 year) plan with the City for the phased annexation, zoning and development of their Ranch. PDF of the agreement: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=82936

The family's quarry, Austin White Lime, is profitable which explains why they've been slow to sell. Its the same reason Austin Metal & Iron Co. located in that prime spot on East 4th next to Plaza Saltillo hasn't sold out yet.

[murfnut]

There is an article in the Austin Business Journal on the new South Domain Towers. I do not have access, so was wondering if anybody that does can take a look and see if there is anything interesting in there to share.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...298&j=86922801

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by murfnut

There is an article in the Austin Business Journal on the new South Domain Towers. I do not have access, so was wondering if anybody that does can take a look and see if there is anything interesting in there to share.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...298&j=86922801

Click through and hit ESC while it loads . . . you should be able to view the whole article.