Austin's Future Skyline (Paris, Lockhart, Liberty: hotel, gated, property tax)

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not a civic planner or designer, but I think the most aesthetic balance would be similar to landscaping principles where you have "undergrowth", in front of a layer of taller stuff and finally the tallest behind it all.

So, for a city like Austin, the tallest stuff in the middle, where it mostly already is, and a "step down" in average heights as the buildings are further from the core.

Ever driven out Hwy 290W past the Y and seen the Pinnacle Bldg? (now ACC). Big tall black glass "city" building surrounded by - nothing. Completely out of place and weird, It was built in the 1980s boom I think. That just don't look right. I never liked that building.

Steve

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know what you are saying as cities like Cairo achieve high densities with lots of mid-rises......I'm thinking zoning might be a deterrent. E.G. what is below CDB in the zoning scale? how much does it allow and how much of the city is zoned in that category?

On a side note I'm glad to see Austin CD taking on this subject of urban development seriously as most of the time folks have to go to that other forum to discuss these topics.

[twange]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Look - the "Capitol District" here in Austin is BY FAR the worst use of land in town. I would suffer a thousand upper Burnet blvds. over that lifeless, soul-less barren wasteland. The really criminal part is - It's freaking smack dab right in-between two of most foot traffic friendly areas of Austin - the CBD and UT. It's an urban crime and the very idea that we should be protecting this nuclear wasteland is absolutely absurd.

Does the Planetarium Bldg. work in context? My goodness gracious no! And thank god for that. The VERY LAST thing that area needs is more single use mid-rise buildings with attached parking lots the size of a city block.

Is it perfect? I have no idea - but it is a START. And we should be jumping for flippin' joy over the thing. Not arguing over whether it's too tall and will overwhelm the scale of the nearby parking lots.

I'm pro DT development but a bit on the fence about the Planetarium design. I like the museum part but the tower looks like it won't age well. Not because I don't want a planetarium And I do think that is a great location for more museum-type development. My concern is NOT for what is there currently - a bunch of trashy 1960s blighted architecture - but for what that area could be. When I mentioned a "Capitol District" earlier on I was referencing the conceptual idea of a district of mixed-use mid-rises that don't dwarf the Capitol building but contrast with the high-rise business district. That way the capitol corridor views from the NE are kept intact and the area gets a makeover with better living options, beautiful buildings and actual HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I'm not a civic planner or designer, but I think the most aesthetic balance would be similar to landscaping principles where you have "undergrowth", in front of a layer of taller stuff and finally the tallest behind it all.

So, for a city like Austin, the tallest stuff in the middle, where it mostly already is, and a "step down" in average heights as the buildings are further from the core.

That's a nice way to look at it Steve!

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by 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.

Did you read the article I linked to?

[twange]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Sure, but that doesn't automatically mean skyscrapers.

Interesting take on it here.

An interesting read. Though a few things that jumped out at me were that Paris (used in the article as an example of high-density without skyscrapers) was completely redesigned and built in the mid 19th-century before the proliferation of the elevator. Also, as the city needed more room for new development, they simply extended the city limits and built. I really can't imagine that happening in Austin. We would very quickly lose tons of housing in all directions to fulfill density requirements using hardcore height restrictions. Close neighborhoods like Tarrytown Travis Hts, Barton Hills would get swallowed up.

"Paris’s density didn’t happen by accident. Paris was rebuilt in the mid-nineteenth century, under a political regime that wanted to densify the city not only for urban reasons, but also as an economic stimulus. There were height regulations and some other restrictions, but overall the government actively put in place a system that would free massive amounts of land with few regulations preventing high levels of density in order to fuel a building boom, which promptly took place.

...The city limits were pushed back in order to allow the development of new areas. Public initiatives like the Parc Monceau and the place de la République were launched with the objective of catalyzing private real estate development."

[Austinite101]

It's a good thing the Planetarium is at least separated from the tower portion of the project. Each have their own funding and they do not touch.

It is too early in the tower design phase to argue about the rendering. It will CERTAINLY change before it is set in stone. It could be shorter, scrapped, or even made taller! We have no idea at this point. Who knows, if a new design comes out, we all may wazz* in our pants and it will become the envy of the entire state. WHO KNOWS?

*CD bleeped out the word that I wanted to use, so I used a pretty wack word instead.

[twange]

Originally Posted by Austinite101

It's a good thing the Planetarium is at least separated from the tower portion of the project. Each have their own funding and they do not touch.

It is too early in the tower design phase to argue about the rendering. It will CERTAINLY change before it is set in stone. It could be shorter, scrapped, or even made taller! We have no idea at this point. Who knows, if a new design comes out, we all may wazz* in our pants and it will become the envy of the entire state. WHO KNOWS?

*CD bleeped out the word that I wanted to use, so I used a pretty wack word instead.

Wazz...

[TexasHorseLady]

From San Francisco, an interesting series of articles:

2005 Is San Francisco's Elevated High-Rise Movement Dead? Some interesting history about this.



2008: Chronicle Cheerleads Mass Luxury High Rise Boom

Elevated Suburbs

2011: Tenants Together article on proposed high-rise development wiping out a neighborhood

There's a lot more, but my time is limited. Thought it was interesting, though, that this is playing out in San Francisco.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Ever driven out Hwy 290W past the Y and seen the Pinnacle Bldg? (now ACC). Big tall black glass "city" building surrounded by - nothing. Completely out of place and weird, It was built in the 1980s boom I think. That just don't look right. I never liked that building.

Steve

I don't think anyone here is trying to defend ugly architecture. That building could have been in any downtown in any city in the world and looked horrid.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

From San Francisco, an interesting series of articles.

San Francisco has about 5 times the density of Austin. We're a LONNGGG way from that.

Of course - I would LOVE to have this conversation with you when we reach San Francisco level density.