Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Differing tastes, obviously. But I predict that such a radical change will not be welcomed by the good people of Austin. Matter of fact, I predict outrage once the public comprehends what a game-changer this would be.
Yes - the people will be outraged, outraged I tell you, over the changing the character of a dead zone. One thing we know people like is their 5 story block long parking garages and single use office buildings set behind large parking lots.
The people will be up in arms at the thought of brining MORE housing to downtown Austin (What? how dare they!) and the people will go positively ape-**** when they learn there will be another activity to bring their children to go see. I'm convinced we'll have blood in the streets when the good people of Austin realize this game-changer is attempting to inject the most modicum of life into the otherwise perfectly lifeless capitol district. We know that the very last thing on earth we need in that area is a game changer.
The game-changer of how we've stated over and over that this would be good for Austin. The only downside you can come up with is that it will block the view of the Capitol. That is all you have.
Btw, we are all good people... you just see issue in something which actually benefits the city. I'd respect your views if you just think it looks ugly... but you're going further than that, saying that it will be bad for the city. You haven't stated anything persuasive enough that shows otherwise, save the CVC.
As for the good people of Austin not welcoming this... well, that's why there are people like us informing those good people of Austin that this is actually beneficial to the city... unless of course, you can prove otherwise than just blocking the Capitol. You're argument of making it more down to size where it can blend in with the neighborhood doesn't suffice. We've already stated that that area is lacking and is very underwhelming.
So, if it turns out that the majority of the people of Austin disagree with you as to this being what's best for Austin, they're just misguided souls and you're the all-wise, all-knowing few who know what's good for the City of Austin and they should not bother their pretty little heads thinking about it and let you do their thinking for them since you know best? That about cover it?
So, if it turns out that the majority of the people of Austin disagree with you as to this being what's best for Austin, they're just misguided souls and you're the all-wise, all-knowing few who know what's good for the City of Austin and they should not bother their pretty little heads thinking about it and let you do their thinking for them since you know best? That about cover it?
That about sums it up. Of course, you over embellish.
The game-changer of how we've stated over and over that this would be good for Austin. The only downside you can come up with is that it will block the view of the Capitol. That is all you have.
No, I've previously stated my other objections, but you still don't even get what I'm saying about THIS objection. This tower does not fit the area, not from any perspective. It's not just about the view of the Capitol, it's about the whole visual corridor northeast of the Capitol, behind the Capitol. And it's about scale. This skyscraper is not just about making a modest change, a reasonable upgrade, it's about overwhelming the entire area with one towering presence that... given the status of other nearby properties... would likely have no serious competition for a long time to come.
And as a breakaway from the accepted "skyscraper district" south of the Capitol, it would be the most radical change to the Austin skyline in decades. Nobody should think that sweeping a change can happen quickly or easily.
And to what great advantage? To make another condominium developer rich? I don't think so.
As they have stated previously, the Planetarium supporters have been considering several sites. This is only one of them. They don't need THIS site to move forward. And I hope they aren't so focused on this one that they lose sight of the other possibilities. Because the more I consider all the factors involved, the less likely I believe this concept will be approved.
No, I've previously stated my other objections, but you still don't even get what I'm saying about THIS objection. This tower does not fit the area, not from any perspective. It's not just about the view of the Capitol, it's about the whole visual corridor northeast of the Capitol, behind the Capitol. And it's about scale. This skyscraper is not just about making a modest change, a reasonable upgrade, it's about overwhelming the entire area with one towering presence that... given the status of other nearby properties... would likely have no serious competition for a long time to come.
And as a breakaway from the accepted "skyscraper district" south of the Capitol, it would be the most radical change to the Austin skyline in decades. Nobody should think that sweeping a change can happen quickly or easily.
And to what great advantage? To make another condominium developer rich? I don't think so.
As they have stated previously, the Planetarium supporters have been considering several sites. This is only one of them. They don't need THIS site to move forward. And I hope they aren't so focused on this one that they lose sight of the other possibilities. Because the more I consider all the factors involved, the less likely I believe this concept will be approved.
OpenD, I have to spread it around a bit first before I can give you more rep, but I wanted to say, this pretty much says it all.
How many of the buildings that are going to be built are planning to have actual local, rather than chain, businesses in the lower floors? That seems to have been a problem that San Francisco experienced with the destruction of vibrant neighborhoods where the high rises went in (along with occupants who, as one article says, entered and left the buildings through the parking garage and had no interest in the actual neighborhood they "lived" in). How is that going to be avoided in this high-rise utopia that you envision?
There are no local business in these sites where the highrises have been going up. They were/are parking lots. And in the highrises that have gone up they are filled with local business. The Austonian (was a parking lot) has Congress, Second, Cafe Medici, BerryAustin2go. The W has a chain stores but also has Austin City Limits (what is more "Austin" than Austin City Limits?) 360 is full of local retail and art gallery. No chains there. Your assumption they are destroying local when in fact they aren't destroying anything, by adding chains when in fact they are adding local is entirely misguided.
If anything is destroying local it is the spread out mid rise you want so bad. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING downtown comes anywhere close to it. You have raised the concerns about the Broken Spoke, and there you go. But there is even worse than that... look at where Alamo South Lamar is in at Lamar Plaza. I believe every single store in Lamar Plaza is local. Stevie Ray Vaughan traded for his first guitar at Heart of Texas. A 59 Strat “Number One” that would be his primary guitar for the rest of his career. That entire strip is going to be replaced with a huge mid rise development, and other than Alamo and Highball all the other stores (all local) are going to have to close or move. Now seriously, in recent history (Post S&L Crash) when has something like that ever happened downtown due to a skyscraper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
Based on what just happened a block away, on the other side of the Bob Bullock Museum from this lot, I would say the answer is going to be a resounding no. The proposal there was for a far more modest residential tower, a student dorm of 23 stories, only 1/2 as tall as this proposal, and it ran into fierce opposition from both citizens and state officials because it would "spoil the view." Unable to secure the necessary zoning change, the project was canceled earlier this week.
Even I was against that one. lol. And it was replacing a parking lot. You KNOW how much I HATE those parking lots! That project was a horrible idea. Most of all because it would have destroyed the view from between the UT Tower and the State Capitol building. The view from Littlefield Fountain and along University would have been gone completely. The idea to put that there was horrible. I can't imagine anyone thinking it would have been a good idea. Even you, THL, I and probably everyone in this thread would likely all agree and say what a horrible idea it is, then I don't think it is the same as the Planetarium. Just because it is one block over doesn't make them the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
So for the sake of discussion let's assume that the 47 story tower proposal won't fly at that location, as I believe it will not, what is actually possible on that site?
Back to definitions... rooting around in the references, there used to be an informal definition of any building over 75' tall being a high-rise, although there are a number of people now who seem to be using 150' as the dividing line. And that 150' works out to being about 12 or 13 stories, which seems to be about the size of the existing buildings on the lots adjoining the MLK property under discussion. Funny, I've been thinking of those as mid-rise, myself. And to me they're a benchmark for that corridor centered on Congress and running north of the Capitol to MLK.
I have been thinking that if properly designed, a little taller might be acceptable in that location, maybe up to 20 stories. In my own assessment, buildings up to 15 - 20 stories are in a different category than skyscrapers, partially because that's the upper range of what fire department equipment can effectively deal with.
But now that the 23 story project only a block away has been nixed because it would spoil the view, I'm guessing that an increase to maybe 16 or 18 stories might be the maximum for a developer to hope for. And even at that, I predict they'd run into fierce opposition.
At 20 stories then ok, to me that is a whole different discussion. You are absolutely right, there is lots of opportunities using only 20 stories to build an architecturally interesting mixed use project and if using 20 stories should be able to have both the plaza and 150,000 sq feet of space for the museum and be able to get just as much residential sq footage from the tower.
If I had to guess (and this is based on nothing but guessing, and throwing poop at the wall) the minimum to get the sort of multi-use they want out of it would be 16 stories. So that would fit in your 16-20 story window with 16 stories having the largest footprint obviously.
As I (and most everyone I know) define mid-rise as less than 90 feet it wouldn't be even close to possible. But doubling that I think it is doable.
No, I've previously stated my other objections, but you still don't even get what I'm saying about THIS objection. This tower does not fit the area, not from any perspective. It's not just about the view of the Capitol, it's about the whole visual corridor northeast of the Capitol, behind the Capitol. And it's about scale. This skyscraper is not just about making a modest change, a reasonable upgrade, it's about overwhelming the entire area with one towering presence that... given the status of other nearby properties... would likely have no serious competition for a long time to come.
On the contrary, I get this objection completely. I'm just not sure what your other objections are.
Quote:
And as a breakaway from the accepted "skyscraper district" south of the Capitol, it would be the most radical change to the Austin skyline in decades. Nobody should think that sweeping a change can happen quickly or easily.
And to what great advantage? To make another condominium developer rich? I don't think so.
Well the changes the Austin skyline has had are pretty radical in and of itself and they seem to be working just fine. I remember people saying that it wouldn't work. Could your predictions also be similar?
They even said the same things about "rich people just getting richer" which is probably true. But it's also true that the development Austin has received has created more vibrancy and more jobs. It's been a win-win so far.
Quote:
As they have stated previously, the Planetarium supporters have been considering several sites. This is only one of them. They don't need THIS site to move forward. And I hope they aren't so focused on this one that they lose sight of the other possibilities. Because the more I consider all the factors involved, the less likely I believe this concept will be approved.
Well, my only problem with this is that I'd like the Planetarium to be in this spot since there are other surrounding museums, so it seems to be a nice fit. I'd rather it get built there, with tower or not.
I just don't see this "radical change" you seem to be arguing as something to worry about. Nobody lives in the area... nobody is being affected. If anything this "radical change" is a good thing. I'm still not sure why it's "bad".
The changes to the Austin skyline seem to be working just fine for you, because you like that kind of skyline. That doesn't mean that they weren't changes that were not desirable, just that you, personally, and other people who think taller/bigger is by definition better, like them.
And can you honestly say that you'd be perfectly happy for the planetarium being built in that location WITHOUT a tower? Really?
The "radical change" is bad because it's entirely out of place, it damages the Capitol corridor sightline, and it makes darned sure that anything else that's built in that area will be taller - it's an obvious attempt to extend skyscraper mentality all the way to the University.
The changes to the Austin skyline seem to be working just fine for you, because you like that kind of skyline. That doesn't mean that they weren't changes that were not desirable, just that you, personally, and other people who think taller/bigger is by definition better, like them.
I am not sure what you are talking about. This construction boom has also paved the way for the emergence of 2nd St District. It's working out for all of us. How is it not working?
Let me ask the question again, do you just dislike tall buildings just because? Or is there something in particular that makes these towers bad?
Quote:
And can you honestly say that you'd be perfectly happy for the planetarium being built in that location WITHOUT a tower? Really?
The original plan was just to have the planetarium and it did not have the tower. It was an awesome design and it was one project that I was very excited for... so yes, I can honestly say I'd be perfectly happy if we just had the planetarium. I don't just want a tower, just because... although I do find them lucrative in terms of appeal to the skyline.
Quote:
The "radical change" is bad because it's entirely out of place, it damages the Capitol corridor sightline, and it makes darned sure that anything else that's built in that area will be taller - it's an obvious attempt to extend skyscraper mentality all the way to the University.
Yes, and that's something I'm not entirely against, although I understand the arguments for the CVC being blocked. Sorry... you just haven't said anything that would make me have to reconsider this. It seems to me that your argument is, "it's not working because its too tall" and that just doesn't make any sense.
The towers looming over Lady Bird Lake have completely changed the feel of that part of the city, taking away an important part of the feel of peace that it used to have. This is one reason that I'm not very fond of them. I probably wouldn't object to high rises downtown if they were further back from the lake itself by several blocks. Of course, then they overshadow the Capitol and the other things that make Austin unique, but the lake is the biggest problem. That and plopping that many more people right in what should be one of the more peaceful areas within the city itself. No point in going down there any more, in my experience, because it's the equivalent of a traffic jam on Mopac or I35. In fact, it's worse than a traffic jam on Mopac or I35, because I can remember when it wasn't like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That project was a horrible idea. Most of all because it would have destroyed the view from between the UT Tower and the State Capitol building. The view from Littlefield Fountain and along University would have been gone completely. The idea to put that there was horrible. I can't imagine anyone thinking it would have been a good idea. Even you, THL, I and probably everyone in this thread would likely all agree and say what a horrible idea it is, then I don't think it is the same as the Planetarium. Just because it is one block over doesn't make them the same.
