Austin | 305 S. Congress | 6 Towers - 215'/295'/365'/375'/445'/525' | Proposed - Page 7

drummer · #1 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 1:24 AM**

I think that the idea of having a plan is sometimes seen as a bad thing (some of the comments, etc.). The haphazard development of the area is the reason it's so dull right now (bland buildings with seas of parking lots and no interaction with neighbors). Any major investment in anything ever has come with planning, tweaks to plans, and more planning as things change and grow. Plans don't mean you have to live and die by them, but it means that you have direction and aren't flying by the seat of your pants. If the city is serious about continuing to grow in a healthy and beneficial way for generations to come, it will approve this type of plan for the area.

I have high hopes for Austin decades to come. I think our problem is that we're very interested in developments and we see so much potential. Not everyone is so passionate about it so it takes them longer to come around on quality urban design. I'm excited about this project and hope that even the greatest opponents to development can see the potential and agree to compromise.

Tech House · #2 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 8:22 PM**

Questions:
1. Does anyone have any idea what's happening with that seemingly-abandoned apartment complex at Riverside and S. First, the one adjacent to the Catherine? I can't even find a thread for that project. It's been a VERY long time since I've seen any progress at that corner, which gives the appearance that the developer was into some shady dealing or was under-financed or something. It reminds me of the type of thing that happened in the mid-80s when the local market crashed and many projects were abandoned.

2. In the illustration posted by Matt, they're showing new highrises at the SE corner of Congress and Riverside, where there is currently a fairly nice strip mall, as strip malls go. What's up with that, is that property up for grabs and is it slated for redevelopment? I presume "yes" to the second part of the question, otherwise it would be depicted as is in the rendering.

Of course I shared the same orgasmic enjoyment of the rendering posted by the Genral and dearly wish for it to be at least vaguely prognostic as to what will come to fruition on that land. The proportions and spacing are perfect, at least from the perspective offered. Funny thing is, nobody will ever see it from that perspective in real life, unless there are plans for a Burj Khalifa knockoff at Holly and Comal. Hey, ya never know. And if you want to challenge me on the hypothetical location, I studied a map to try to get the perspective right but I bet one of you OCD chaps can nail it with extreme precision.

Jdawgboy · #3 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech House

Questions:
1. Does anyone have any idea what's happening with that seemingly-abandoned apartment complex at Riverside and S. First, the one adjacent to the Catherine? I can't even find a thread for that project. It's been a VERY long time since I've seen any progress at that corner, which gives the appearance that the developer was into some shady dealing or was under-financed or something. It reminds me of the type of thing that happened in the mid-80s when the local market crashed and many projects were abandoned.

I regularly park across the street when I walk the hike and bike trail and I can confirm that the VMU is being finished out albiet slowly. There was quite a lot of brick work that seemed to crawl but that has been completed and overall work has picked up. In fact it looks like they are close to completion. I was worried by how the finished product would turn out especially given the sluggish speed at which they were building it but I must say it's looking pretty nice. If I could, I'd rent the top level apartment on the northwest corner with the large balcony. The view of the river and city alone would make the high monthly payments worth it plus there will be plenty of highrise construction to enjoy for the next few years.

The ATX · #4 Posted **Apr 7, 2016, 9:38 PM**

That place had a very small work force. At one point they stopped working on the north half and focused on the south half. Once the south half was almost completed they re-started work on the northern portion.

wwmiv · #5 Posted **Apr 8, 2016, 3:06 PM**

The Statesman tract is more than just a park. 4 of those projects in the scheme above are entirely on the Statesman tract, and once those are developed (and are likely to developed in quick succession if not simultaneously), you'll likely see development spread to neighboring parcels pretty quickly.

wwmiv · #6 Posted **Apr 13, 2016, 6:17 PM**

Here's another write up:

http://buildingatx.com/2016/04/south...pe-renderings/

Quote:

Councilmembers got a preview of what might be included in the City’s South Central Waterfront Initiative master plan this week, including recommendations for dense, mixed-use development, expanded open and green space, and an elevated trail over Bouldin Creek.

On so many levels this makes me happy.

KevinFromTexas · #7 Posted **Sep 25, 2016, 1:55 AM**

That's actually quite a lot. I count 11 200 footers. Austin right now has 24 200 footers, plus three more that are under construction - two of which have topped out. So technically we have 26. 11 more would be quite an increase especially considering it's just one neighborhood.

KevinFromTexas · #8 Posted **Sep 26, 2016, 8:40 PM**

That's just one aspect of Austin that always bugs me. We try to cut corners way too much to save money or time. I mean, I think that with the boost to the property tax revenue the city and county would get from all of that development that we should get something more substantial and permanent than a floating bridge.

Novacek · #9 Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's just one aspect of Austin that always bugs me. We try to cut corners way too much to save money or time. I mean, I think that with the boost to the property tax revenue the city and county would get from all of that development that we should get something more substantial and permanent than a floating bridge.

Honestly I never thought they proposed that to save money. Especially once you add operating costs, I'd be surprised if it's cheaper.

I figured it was just new/unique/original/"more-Austiny"

You know, the gondola of bridge designs.

Geckos_Rule · #10 Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 11:28 PM**

Not sure if this counts as being technically south shore, but it's south congress, so I thought it warranted mentioning. But the owner of a pretty large piece of property on SOCO has decided to develop it into mixed-use, per the Statesman's report.

http://www.statesman.com/business/do...ef=cbTopWidget

Sigaven · #11 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule

Not sure if this counts as being technically south shore, but it's south congress, so I thought it warranted mentioning. But the owner of a pretty large piece of property on SOCO has decided to develop it into mixed-use, per the Statesman's report.

http://www.statesman.com/business/do...ef=cbTopWidget

Glad to see Lake Flato will be doing this project - they do really excellent work.

Jdawgboy · #12 Posted **Dec 1, 2016, 7:44 PM**

It's not just Docs, that's quite a lot of businesses that this development will be displacing. Other than restaurant space, there's no mention of retail space.

Flatiron · #13 Posted **Sep 27, 2016, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's just one aspect of Austin that always bugs me. We try to cut corners way too much to save money or time. I mean, I think that with the boost to the property tax revenue the city and county would get from all of that development that we should get something more substantial and permanent than a floating bridge.

Please tell me this is a joke. How about something that has the capacity to be here in 100 years?

drummer · #14 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 1:21 AM**

^ I recall that mentioned on this forum a long time ago (maybe more than a year ago). I just skimmed through a bunch of stuff and couldn't find the reference. There was an article talking about MUD for the entirety of the grassy stretch from Nellie to the creek, if I recall correctly.

I do think it could work - they could even tie it into the school and connect SoCo with South Shore, like you mentioned, Jdawgboy, and perhaps have some outdoor eating space or something to protect the huge trees there. Could be fun.

drummer · #15 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 10:58 AM**

I don't think he was saying that the school should go away; he was only asking about the land along Congress. No one is suggesting the school should go away.

Jdawgboy · #16 Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 8:42 PM**

The school is not going anywhere nor should it. The only piece of their property in question is the strip of land which borders Congress Ave. There was an article as drummer mentioned regarding the possibility that they might sell the strip of land. The school itself would not be affected. I was just asking if anyone had heard or seen any updates about that? If I remember correctly, it was only a possible option that they could do.

ATXCirca2014 · #17 Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

The school is not going anywhere nor should it. The only piece of their property in question is the strip of land which borders Congress Ave. There was an article as drummer mentioned regarding the possibility that they might sell the strip of land. The school itself would not be affected. I was just asking if anyone had heard or seen any updates about that? If I remember correctly, it was only a possible option that they could do.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

I agree about the strip of land. It should be redeveloped. Too many homeless people set their camps there.

Jdawgboy · #18 Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXCirca2014

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

I agree about the strip of land. It should be redeveloped. Too many homeless people set their camps there.

Welcome to the forum. It's great to see new posters. Feel free to join into the conversation in any of the threads.

drummer · #19 Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 2:03 AM**

It seems to me that it would be a wise financial decision for the school also. If they sold it now, when the market is red hot, think of how much they could bring in...it's prime real estate.

lzppjb · #20 Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 11:24 PM**

Having more shops/restaurants on that strip would be really cool. It'd extend South Congress and make it even more vibrant.

I don't believe TSD should move. I like that they've been there so long. But that strip of land is not used by them, from what I can tell. Sell it and stipulate the buyer has to put up a nice privacy fence or wall.