Austin Projects & Construction

[LiveattheOasis]

Keep it all away. I love D/FW, I grew up there, and I appreciate all that it has to offer. I love Austin for very different reasons, and I would hate for Austin to slide into normalcy as it grows. This place is unique, and I don't want companies unwilling to contribute to our civic pride in here. Simple as that. Boy I don't sound like the conservative I once claimed to be, haha.

[austintilIdie]

the original schlosser plan didn't pan out, but was pegged to be the backbone of the 'market district' idea for that area...the former whole foods building, shared by bookpeople is slated for redevelopment, the old KVET building plays into this as well i believe..so the 6 block stretch on the eastern side of lamar blvd from the nokonah to the proposed spring could see some changes with in-fill and redevelopment and i certainly see the officemax/starbucks structure factoring in for redevelopment later on given its 'surburbanesque' flavor...though it could have been worse i suppose

i'd assume the spring developers are keeping any eye on this corridor for their briefly floated idea of a possible phase 2 within a block or so of the 3rd and Bowie project

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know about now, I'm not sure what their current plans are, but Shclosser's project in the BookPeople/Old Whole Foods center was supposed to be redeveloped, replacing KVET's studio with a 6-story building. They also would have added onto the parking garage there. Area neighborhoods complained though, saying they worried about an increase in traffic. As far as I know, Schlosser dropped their original plans and agreed to scale it back. The original project looked to be around 80 to 90 feet tall with the building fronting Lamar where KVET is now.

[ivanwolf]

Hey some of my frieds got floor plans in the mail for the Spring. The plans look much better than 360. Looks like there will be 2 three bedroom, 2 two bedroom, and 2 one bedroom plans. There will be 4 three bedrooms on one floor and the 2 two bedroom and 2 one bedrooms on another floor. Guess they will alternate or do so many of 1 floor layout and then so many of the others. Bathrooms and closets look bigger than 360. However i noticed an error on the plans, that the 2/2's have only one toilet showing as well as the 3/2's too. I would assume that a error to rush plans out to people but if not then you will have 2 nice bathrooms but only one toilet. The largest three bedroom has 2 balconies too. The two and three bedrooms are on the corners with the one bedrooms on the flat side in between the two bedrooms. I would hope they update the website soon so everyone can see. The brochure did not show how the core of the building will look so not sure about elevators, stairs, and hallway configuratins yet. May be i will win the lotto and get one. That or just see my friends a lot.

[DTAustin]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Hey some of my frieds got floor plans in the mail for the Spring. The plans look much better than 360. Looks like there will be 2 three bedroom, 2 two bedroom, and 2 one bedroom plans. There will be 4 three bedrooms on one floor and the 2 two bedroom and 2 one bedrooms on another floor. Guess they will alternate or do so many of 1 floor layout and then so many of the others. Bathrooms and closets look bigger than 360. However i noticed an error on the plans, that the 2/2's have only one toilet showing as well as the 3/2's too. I would assume that a error to rush plans out to people but if not then you will have 2 nice bathrooms but only one toilet. The largest three bedroom has 2 balconies too. The two and three bedrooms are on the corners with the one bedrooms on the flat side in between the two bedrooms. I would hope they update the website soon so everyone can see. The brochure did not show how the core of the building will look so not sure about elevators, stairs, and hallway configuratins yet. May be i will win the lotto and get one. That or just see my friends a lot.

Do you have pricing for these plans?

[ivanwolf]

The plans and info are not in my hands, but what i remember is that they were in the range that everone has talked about, starting in the $200's and up, and of course that will change by floor. Sorry I don't have exact details, these were just my observations while briefly being shown the plans.

[LookingUp]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

The plans and info are not in my hands, but what i remember is that they were in the range that everone has talked about, starting in the $200's and up, and of course that will change by floor. Sorry I don't have exact details, these were just my observations while briefly being shown the plans.

Springs floorplans are very similar to 360 - although they appear to have real bathrooms, not the "student housing" bathrooms at 360. Both projects are quoting sales prices of $300 PSF (bottom of building) to +$400 PSF (top of building). The smallest units are around 700 SF and will start at +$200,000 in both buildings. The average unit prices should be about $350,000 for a decent 1-bedroom (1,000 SF) and $490,000 for a 2-bedroom (1,400 SF).

What's more interesting is the different approaches they've taken. Spring has designed an "amenity-free" building, while 360 has focused on "lifestyle." There are NO amenities at Spring. 360 has pools, fitness areas, theaters, club rooms and even a "sky-deck." It's clear that 360 has decided to have cheaper living spaces and will use those savings to create the lifestyle amenities. It's still unclear if Spring has better finishes in their condo units, but that was Perry's original plan.

I think we'll know more when these properties actually try to "sell" condo units. So far, neither has.

Novare (360) recently told potential equity partners that they are exploring the option of making 360 a rental - instead of selling units. Apparently, they were disappointed by the attendance at their sales launch at La Zona Rosa. (They probably should be apartments - that's what the floorplans look like. While they are significantly smaller than AMLI Downtown and 404 Rio Grande (rentals), both those properties found enough renters at $1.75 PSF).

Novare is supposed to make this decision by December 1st - we'll see.

Hopefully, this will all be figured out in the next 2 months. Spring needs to start a sales effort to be taken seriously. Even posting the floorplans and pricing on their website would help. Novare has already spent a few million dollars, while Spring has only put up a billboard. (I think it may have cost $1,500).

[crewer]

Originally Posted by LookingUp

There are NO amenities at Spring. 360 has pools, fitness areas, theaters, club rooms and even a "sky-deck." It's clear that 360 has decided to have cheaper living spaces and will use those savings to create the lifestyle amenities.

I find that really hard to believe that no such amenities will be available at Spring considering none of the others are amenity-free. In looking at the renderings, the whole top section of the garage portion has trees, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a pool and deck space in that area.

[LookingUp]

Originally Posted by crewer

I find that really hard to believe that no such amenities will be available at Spring considering none of the others are amenity-free. In looking at the renderings, the whole top section of the garage portion has trees, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a pool and deck space in that area.

Hard to believe, but it's true. No amenities at Spring.

The website used to have this very funny explanation about amenities. It said: "No pool because we're near Barton Springs pool. No fitness center because we're next door to Pure Austin Gym. No business center because we're right next door to Office Max." They claimed they wanted to be able to sell "affordable condos" by not including amenities. They have since removed that info on their website. (Maybe the units will be unfinished because they're not far from Home Depot and Lowes).

I remember seeing their schematic designs and there isn't much of a lobby either. They believe amenities are not necessary because of the "neighborhood." Maybe that will work - who knows.

360 has made it (mostly) about amenities, with clearly cheaper units. When they both provide additional info and actually try to sell something, we'll see if it makes any sense. They're both more "apartment" than anything approaching a luxury condo.

This has been a calculated attempt (perhaps brilliant) to sell lower priced units that would target a much larger market of potential buyers - but, we'll have to see if it works. Both are still priced at $300-$400 PSF. Remember, Milago was sold (honestly) as a "less-than-luxury" product and priced at $250 PSF. Even at this price they included many amenities and it's clearly a great location (maybe better than Spring). They had little trouble selling at those prices.

[LiveattheOasis]

Wow is nothing going on in Austin right now? Where are the posts?

[messerproperties]

I received some info in the mail about Spring. They now claim there will be a workout facility, a lounge, lap pool, private dining areas, and guest suites. It seems they have changed to many amenities rather than none. This must also add to HOA fees, that were supposed to be affordable. Also, they claim that the design of the lobby will "make you smile everytime you come home."

To prove it, look at the PDF files in the "october file" of their updates @ http://updates.springaustin.com/

I was considering purchasing a unit at Spring but am now having second thoughts after seeing their one bedroom floorplans, which are only 576 and 699 sq.ft. each. If they're priced at $300 per sq.ft., that would mean they'd be at $172,800 and $209,700 respectively. I know they said they started at $200,000 so I'm assuming they'll be priced higher than $300 sq.ft. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[KevinFromTexas]

More drama between White Lodging and Las Manitas.

From the Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/realestate/11/01/1lasmanitas.html

DOWNTOWN AUSTIN
Las Manitas talks are back to the drawing board
Hotel developer says restaurant owners have rejected compromise offers

By Claudia Grisales, Shonda Novak
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

It's back to the drawing board on efforts to reach a compromise between owners of a popular Congress Avenue restaurant and a developer who wants to replace it with a convention hotel, with less than two months before the restaurant's lease expires.

White Lodging Services Corp. said in a letter to Austin City Council members that the Perez sisters who have owned Las Manitas for 25 years have rejected all of their offers "and have not offered any viable solutions."

The company said its latest proposal included helping Las Manitas move into a building the sisters own at Congress Avenue and Third Street and possibly incorporating La Peña Gallery, now in that building, into the hotel project.

"These offers also have been rejected," said the Oct. 27 letter from Bruce White, CEO of the development company.

Neither Lidia or Cynthia Perez nor their representatives could be reached for comment.

White Lodging's July announcement that it would build a $185 million, 1,000-room Marriott hotel project has stirred up a rancorous debate about whether the city should take steps to help so-called iconic businesses that are threatened by development.

It also has brought out critics who say landowners should be able to do what they want with their property and who note that the hotel project will create 600 jobs and tax revenue.

Last month, three City Council members sent a letter to Marriott International Inc. noting that the project will require zoning variances and asking the hotel chain to revise its plans so Las Manitas doesn't have to move.

White's letter was the reply. In the letter, White said his company met with the owners of Las Manitas and the Escuelita del Alma before the project was announced to discuss how it "could assist them in the transition once their leases expired in December."

The owners rejected offers of lease extensions and free rent to August 2007 and relocation grants, White said. "Both . . . stated that their position was 'to remain at our current location on a permanent basis.' "

The offer included Tesoros Trading Co., south of Las Manitas, White said.

At another meeting after the City Council letter, White raised the idea of helping Las Manitas move into a century-old building the sisters own at Congress Avenue and Third Street. It's now home to La Peña, a community arts organization and gallery.

The letter doesn't spell out the details.

In the letter to Council Members Brewster McCracken, Mike Martinez and Lee Leffingwell, White asked for their help to find a solution that would allow the hotel project to go forward and find new locations for the businesses.

Martinez said he's hopeful that discussions will get on the right track, adding that he was encouraged that some conditions attached to the original lease-extension offer were off the table.

"If we are going to say we do want this hotel, and I am acknowledging that we do, . . . (then) we need to keep working towards a solution that everybody can agree with," he said.

"I am not here to inject myself into a property rights discussion," Martinez said. "We are exploring every possible option. It's not about these three businesses. These are about issues and struggles we are going to face for a long time to come as we continue to grow at this pace."

But McCracken said White Lodging should have to play by the same rules as other developers who ask for "lucrative development bonuses" from the city, such as zoning variances, and provide a public benefit in exchange, such as affordable housing units or protecting longstanding local businesses.

As an example, he cited Walgreens Co., which donated land for a new Maria's Taco Xpress when it wanted to build a drugstore on the restaurant's South Lamar Boulevard site.

White Lodging has not "laid out anything they're willing to do and don't believe they have any responsibility at all to do so," McCracken said.

Richard Suttle, White Lodging's lawyer, says discussions will continue.

"We are committed to staying at the table . . . and find ways to allow for the redevelopment of downtown Austin without losing that which makes our city special," he said.

[crewer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

More drama between White Lodging and Las Manitas...

Despite strong feelings for development, particularly in downtown, my hat goes off to the "sisters" on this one. I don't have a lot of respect for White Lodging and the way they moved into town with this arrogant, "We can do whatever the Hell we want here, so screw Austin" mentality.

Mowing over an entire city block of existing businesses, regardless of how aesthetically unappealing they are, to build a hotel, does little to benefit the people of Austin. Great care needs to be taken with development to ensure a balance of what Austin is becoming and what we all know and love about the city. If future development squanders the soul of downtown, then Austin will be nothing more than another homogeneous American city, and it will become a rarity to hear people from other parts of the country say, "Austin? What a great town!"

[AustinBob]

Not knowing all of the details of what is going on in private talks between Las Manitas and White Lodging, it is starting to seem like the sisters are not being completely reasonable (IMHO). Let's remember that someone other than White Lodging owns the building that Las Manitas leases and they have a right to sell their property to whomever they choose. I hope that a compromise can be reached so Las Manitas can carry on, but their right to make demands is limited to the four corners of their current lease.

[KevinFromTexas]

A few updates here.

Rendering for AquaTerra: This looks nice, from what I can see. They're also saying it'll be "20-stories" tall.
http://www.liveaquaterra.com/


And the Downtown Austin Emerging Projects Descriptions list and map has now been updated for October 2006.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/default.htm

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by AustinBob

Not knowing all of the details of what is going on in private talks between Las Manitas and White Lodging, it is starting to seem like the sisters are not being completely reasonable (IMHO). Let's remember that someone other than White Lodging owns the building that Las Manitas leases and they have a right to sell their property to whomever they choose. I hope that a compromise can be reached so Las Manitas can carry on, but their right to make demands is limited to the four corners of their current lease.

Well spoken!!! One must take everything they read in the AAS with a grain of salt. It is a liberal paper and, for the most part, is against development in general. I'm confident that each party in this debate has been “unreasonable” to a certain degree. And, I don't like the fact that almost every story being written about this topic is one sided (backing the sisters).

Let's remember that the Finley Company, who currently owns the block at 2nd & Congress, has property rights and has left no qualms about what they intended to do with their land – sell it to a developer. The sisters have known about the impending sale for at least a year or two now. And it seems as if the AAS wants people to believe that the Finley Company & White Lodging are the bad guys here – swooping in at a moment’s notice and kicking everyone out.

I respect the feelings we all have about institutions like Las Manitas – I have them too! But moving a block or two down the road won’t hurt, right?!? I don’t think so…

Another fact that the media is not discussing is this: for the past several years, the sisters decided not to renew their multiple-year lease. Instead, they wanted to go year-to-year because they were not sure if they wanted to close or sell Las Manitas. The Perez’s have been running the restaurant for over 25 years and sales were decent/good, not great. It is my theory that when this development plan hit the public airwaves and incited the anti-development activists from south Austin (and environs) and all of a sudden, the sisters had a huge, free, advertising behemoth on their hands. Heck, I’d stick around for a while if I was making money too!! Sales have never been greater and the Las Mantias name has never been so “famous.” I think that if the sisters “loose” this battle, they may be a bit sad, but their rolling in dough… And who said they can’t start anew – or redevelop a new Las Manitas just down Congress in a building they already own?

This is just my opinion…

[AustinBob]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

all of a sudden, the sisters had a huge, free, advertising behemoth on their hands. Heck, I’d stick around for a while if I was making money too!!

Exactly. They haven't been in business in downtown Austin for 25 years without being smart businesswomen. I haven't eaten there since I last worked downtown in the late 90's, but all this talk of the restaurant has made me think that it’s time I go back.

[Jdawgboy]

I also think that the Perez sisters may be too uncompromising. I think in the long run they are just going to hurt their business. If white Lodging has tried more then one compromise proposal and still they reject they are just being a little anti-growth in my opinion. On that note I still think they can re-design the Hotel to fit on that lot wich has a good ammount of open parking all they would need to do is increase the height of the building wich shouldn't be a problem seeing is how a 700 footer is supposed to go up across the street from there.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

One must take everything they read in the AAS with a grain of salt. It is a liberal paper and, for the most part, is against development in general.

Please don;t go there....... don;t make this political. Liberal newspapers don't endorse the likes of Perry and Hutchensen for office.

BTW.... I am probably as "liberal" as you might find.... but totally agree about the rights of property owners. (I have said much earlier that their rights stop when the lease does). Obviousley such labels do us no good....they only stop dialogue.

Thanks

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Please don;t go there....... don;t make this political. Liberal newspapers don't endorse the likes of Perry and Hutchensen for office.

BTW.... I am probably as "liberal" as you might find.... but totally agree about the rights of property owners. (I have said much earlier that their rights stop when the lease does). Obviousley such labels do us no good....they only stop dialogue.

Thanks

Yeah, I had to laugh at that one. The South Austin NIMBYs call it the "Austin realeStatesman" and are convinced it's knee-jerk pro-development. More like it's just a mediocre paper with uneven reporting....

Also as lefty myself (environmentalist and social democrat) I'd say the anti-development NIMBYs are betraying "liberal" or "progressive" values anyway, by opposing denser more sustainable development, light rail, and making Austin less affordable to families by restricting the supply of housing....