New push to protect Warehouse District

KevinFromTexas · #1 Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 11:36 AM**

Quote:

New push to protect Warehouse District

Heritage Society pushes for area's protection

Updated: Wednesday, 02 Sep 2009, 7:37 PM CDT
Published : Wednesday, 02 Sep 2009, 6:12 PM CDT

* Jim Swift

Austin (KXAN) - September 24th, the Austin City Council is scheduled to consider protections for downtown’s popular Warehouse District.

The area, bounded by Guadalupe and Colorado Streets, along Third, Fourth and Fifth Streets, is a thriving entertainment district. Its bars, coffee houses and restaurants attract thousands of people on weekend nights. During the day, it is alive with bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

...

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/mobile/City_...house_District

MichaelB · #2 Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 6:33 PM**

I hope folks will read the full story on this before commenting. I feel, somehow, this needs to happen

StoOgE · #3 Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 11:47 PM**

I like the idea of the owners of that property getting money when other developers build higher outside of the warehouse district.

Our downtown is large enough and lacks density.. we have plenty of room to build up without changing the warehouse district.

austintilIdie · #4 Posted **Sep 25, 2009, 12:56 AM**

I'm all for adding high-rise density in the Warehouse District solely on surface parking lots (like along 3rd and 4th streets) extending west from Congress. There are many other lots like these sprinkled across downtown. Beyond that, I fear the very essence of the district will wither away.

KevinFromTexas · #5 Posted **Sep 25, 2009, 1:51 AM**

Yeah, I don't want to see any of the warehouses replaced, unless one is vacant and has been for a long time and is determined to be structurally not safe. Then there are the vacant lots that could be developed with either midrise or highrise. I could see the warehouse district being a good place for some hotels. There's a lot of bars and restaurants that could serve the hotels and the hotels could house tourists in town for big events like SXSW.

M1EK · #6 Posted **Sep 25, 2009, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I like the idea of the owners of that property getting money when other developers build higher outside of the warehouse district.

Our downtown is large enough and lacks density.. we have plenty of room to build up without changing the warehouse district.

No, we really don't have plenty of room to build up. When you eliminate the blocks covered by Capital View Corridors, the entire NW corner (Judges' Hill and points further south), the entire W side of downtown ("Market District" and other stuff east of Lamar), the Warehouse District is an uncomfortably large percentage of the remaining developeable land downtown.

H2O · #7 Posted **Sep 25, 2009, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

No, we really don't have plenty of room to build up. When you eliminate the blocks covered by Capital View Corridors, the entire NW corner (Judges' Hill and points further south), the entire W side of downtown ("Market District" and other stuff east of Lamar), the Warehouse District is an uncomfortably large percentage of the remaining developeable land downtown.

What's uncomfortable about a single block? It's actually a pretty small percentage.

PartyLine · #8 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, I don't want to see any of the warehouses replaced, unless one is vacant and has been for a long time and is determined to be structurally not safe. Then there are the vacant lots that could be developed with either midrise or highrise. I could see the warehouse district being a good place for some hotels. There's a lot of bars and restaurants that could serve the hotels and the hotels could house tourists in town for big events like SXSW.

Isn't that area where the Westin downtown is supposed to go?

M1EK · #9 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 1:26 AM**

It's disingenuous to say the Warehouse District changes affect only one block, but that'd still be about 25% of the remaining skyscrapeable blocks by my quick estimate given the rest of the plans and CVCs. The 'core block' gets the tightest restrictions, but other restrictions are proposed to affect the surrounding block-or-so.

MichaelB · #10 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 3:08 AM**

Really happy to see the effort to ensure the warehouse district is somehow kept. And.... glad to see there is a buffer around 4th street. This is texture that needs to ( somehow) be viable. Happy to see the battle over it, instead of it just being mowed over one building at a time. I am really OK to have a few less high-rises if it means keeping the texture and interest in the area. Quality folks, not quantity.

KevinFromTexas · #11 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

No, we really don't have plenty of room to build up. When you eliminate the blocks covered by Capital View Corridors, the entire NW corner (Judges' Hill and points further south), the entire W side of downtown ("Market District" and other stuff east of Lamar), the Warehouse District is an uncomfortably large percentage of the remaining developeable land downtown.

Exactly. Once you figure in the capitol view corridors, all the height restrictions along the river, and bordering neighborhood restrictions and opposition, plus historical buildings, we aren't left with that much space anymore for skyscraper development, even if they aren't huge or tall projects. And really with the small amount of lots left to develop, the skyline is going to have grow vertically to achieve the needed square footage of uses.

I want to see the warehouse district kept intact, but there also needs to be some allowances for highrises there. Certainly any of the vacant lots should be developed, and it doesn't matter if that happens with highrises or lowrises, but those lots need to go so that we can justify putting development restrictions there. Fill in the vacant lots and vacant buildings first, develop and redevelop those first for sure. The existing buildings that have been long occupied should stay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Isn't that area where the Westin downtown is supposed to go?

Yes, and the building (an 18-story hotel) is planned for a vacant parking lot. The address is 311 Colorado Street. It would occupy the northeast corner of West 3rd Street & Colorado Street. It's one block west of the 301 Congress office building.

Honestly though, the Warehouse District is a pretty small area when you really look at it. It only occupies about 4 full blocks.

MichaelB · #12 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 5:51 AM**

Kevin, I agree that vacant lots should not be filled with "fake period warehouses". Empty lots should be able to be developed as much as possible. The only challenge comes with unscrupulous developers who would work to keep a building vacant until it falls down.. then claim the right to build up. And, yep that happens. So.... unless you protect the entire district, not sure the long term effect would be a great as desired. I also recalled some "design" standards for new construction. I need to re-read, but that is what I referring to as "fake warehouses". I am fine to see periods next to each other. I personally would not want a Disney effect!

Jdawgboy · #13 Posted **Sep 26, 2009, 7:05 PM**

Okay I was out in the Warehouse District lastnight. Me and a friend were out on the rooftop balcony of SIX at the corner of 4th and Colorado and I was thinking about this debate. Im on the fence at this time. I don't want to loose more blocks that could be used to build highrises but at the same time it may not be such a bad Idea to have a lower height buffer for that area. Go out to any of the rooftop patios out there and tell me it wouldn't be neat to be surrounded by tall buildings. If you go out there now you already get the idea. You can look all around and your now surrounded by highrises with the exceptions of a few gaps. I can see in a few years down the road, more of that affect. I do think that these parking lots need to go especially the one at 4th and Congress. It is probably the one lot that I wish would be developed ASAP before any others in that area. If the city had some sort of program to encourage land owners to keep the old warehouses in good shape and to have businesses, then have ways to build up alittle higher on the empty lots as long as it benefits the Warehouse district then that may be a good idea.

StoOgE · #14 Posted **Sep 27, 2009, 2:16 AM**

Eh,

The warehouse district should be maintained as it is.

I'm fine with the parking lots or newer buildings being redeveloped into high rises.. but I think street level retail should be required. The existing historical buildings should be preserved.

JACKinBeantown · #15 Posted **Sep 28, 2009, 2:21 PM**

Warehouses take up space, forcing new buildings to go higher instead of wider. Anyone who likes tall buildings should want the warehouses to stay. And anyone who has a sense of historic preservation should feel the same way. Hey, we can all get along.

M1EK · #16 Posted **Sep 28, 2009, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

Warehouses take up space, forcing new buildings to go higher instead of wider. Anyone who likes tall buildings should want the warehouses to stay. And anyone who has a sense of historic preservation should feel the same way. Hey, we can all get along.

This is incredibly faulty logic.

Before these changes; we got a 22-1 FAR building built (with no TDRs) (Austonian).

After these changes, the 8-1 FAR limit in CBD will be more strictly enforced than now, requiring TDRs and other tricks to get up to anywhere near 22-1.

So how, precisely, does this new plan encourage taller buildings?

To say nothing of the fact that the tall buildings are a means rather than an end - most of us would be happy with midrises if we could get them built over a much larger area, but other misguided preservationists have allied with nakedly self-interested obstructionists to prevent that from happening, so the net effect of preserving the WHD is to dramatically lessen the number of people who can live downtown, which is already the only (small) part of our city in which we have the political will to tolerate density.

JACKinBeantown · #17 Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 10:25 PM**

Oy.

OK.

JAM · #18 Posted **Sep 29, 2009, 10:37 PM**

Anyone have a good link or two on articles that provide information on the old D.T. Austin warehouses and their historical value?

LoneStarMike · #19 Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 12:25 AM**

This is probably not what you're looking for, but prior to the warehouses, that area of downtown used to be Austin's red light district. Here's a great article about it.

Austin's Guy Town

Austin, Texas's swank entertainment district has a more sordid past: prostitutes and saloons.

In Brief: History House's hometown, Austin Texas, was once a bucolic dusty berg of four thousand souls. On the way to becoming a city where the dot commers are all unemployed and Jenna Bush gets busted for underage drinking, Austin's history included a notorious red light district. The associated history of salacious doings, strumpets, saloons, and swearing is too good not to tell, and a great snapshot of a post-civil war America on the verge of modernity.

Read more

JAM · #20 Posted **Sep 30, 2009, 4:50 AM**

Thanks LSM! Good stuff! Any others?