Austin's Future Skyline (Paris, Burnet: landscaping, tenants, luxury)

[austin-steve]

What can be build in the "capital district wasteland" is controlled by the capital view corridore. The NE is fairly off limits.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I don't see how it would be possible to have the plaza, plus an architecturally interesting 150,000 sq foot planetarium plus midrise residential all on the same block limited to under 9 stories tall.

Wait, who said anything about limiting it to 9 stories? That's a "strawman" argument, setting up a phony "either/or" comparison that does not exist. The existing buildings around the site are taller than that.

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Midrise residentials take up whole blocks.

Yes, where they do. But not, where they don't. I'm absolutely clear, from traveling all over tarnation, that viable projects have been done in every size and shape.

What I would do, if I were a supporter of the Planetarium project, is to go back to the other folks and say... ok, how can we do this in a manner that scales well to the neighborhood? Because if that is not possible, then we really ought to be looking for a different location, or a different package.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Wait, who said anything about limiting it to 9 stories? That's a "strawman" argument, setting up a phony "either/or" comparison that does not exist. The existing buildings around the site are taller than that.



Yes, where they do. But not, where they don't. I'm absolutely clear, from traveling all over tarnation, that viable projects have been done in every size and shape.

What I would do, if I were a supporter of the Planetarium project, is to go back to the other folks and say... ok, how can we do this in a manner that scales well to the neighborhood? Because if that is not possible, then we really ought to be looking for a different location, or a different package.

Exactly.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Wait, who said anything about limiting it to 9 stories? That's a "strawman" argument, setting up a phony "either/or" comparison that does not exist. The existing buildings around the site are taller than that.



Yes, where they do. But not, where they don't. I'm absolutely clear, from traveling all over tarnation, that viable projects have been done in every size and shape.

What I would do, if I were a supporter of the Planetarium project, is to go back to the other folks and say... ok, how can we do this in a manner that scales well to the neighborhood? Because if that is not possible, then we really ought to be looking for a different location, or a different package.

You've never once explained why the new project needs to scale to the worst land use in central Texas. Are you really concerned about protecting the character of what amounts to be the worlds most inappropriately placed office park?

Ism the better course of action to realize the horrible mistakes that were made in the 1970s abd 1980s and do everything we can to correct that?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Wait, who said anything about limiting it to 9 stories? That's a "strawman" argument, setting up a phony "either/or" comparison that does not exist. The existing buildings around the site are taller than that.



Yes, where they do. But not, where they don't. I'm absolutely clear, from traveling all over tarnation, that viable projects have been done in every size and shape.

What I would do, if I were a supporter of the Planetarium project, is to go back to the other folks and say... ok, how can we do this in a manner that scales well to the neighborhood? Because if that is not possible, then we really ought to be looking for a different location, or a different package.

Lots of projects don't "scale" to neighborhood but end up providing a dramatic counter point, think of the Eiffel Tower or La Sagrada Familia for example

[buffettjr]

Really cool. Thanks for posting these renderings.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Komeht

You've never once explained why the new project needs to scale to the worst land use in central Texas. Are you really concerned about protecting the character of what amounts to be the worlds most inappropriately placed office park?

Ism the better course of action to realize the horrible mistakes that were made in the 1970s abd 1980s and do everything we can to correct that?

Sure, but that doesn't automatically mean skyscrapers.

Interesting take on it here.

[sxrckr]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

What can be build in the "capital district wasteland" is controlled by the capital view corridore. The NE is fairly off limits.

Yep, so case closed on that, unless it's ever changed.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Sure, but that doesn't automatically mean skyscrapers.

Interesting take on it here.

I would agree with skyscrapers not automatically being the answer, but the deal is that downtown Austin already has just as much midrise as highrise development, and guess what? The demand for highrises is still there. It's not like people are being forced to build and live in them. People want to live in and near downtown. Density develops from a central point of interest outward, not all over the city as you're wanting to be the case.

Outside of downtown and West Campus, I just don't see midrise development taking root except for maybe the East Side. If homes in Clarksville, Barton Hills, and Travis Heights started disappearing in favor of midrises, can you imagine the uproar? I could see you at the front lines of that fight. I'm not sure there's any winning with you. I personally would rather see more highrises downtown than some of the beautiful homes around central Austin go.

I personally don't see how highrises downtown are detracting from Austin's character. Austin is practically unique in America in that its skyline is mostly residential, and it's a testament to its vibrancy, livability, and culture. No amount of glass and steel is going to change that, so I'm not sure why you're so opposed.

[FueledByBlueBell]

I still want an example of a city that has prioritized mid-sized development with an expanding population. Certainly not saying it isn't possible but a concrete example might help.