Austin's Future Skyline (Alamo, Littlefield, Post: fit in, stores, assess)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

In other words, migol84, YOUR idea of what's beautiful is DIFFERENT and couldn't POSSIBLY fall into a category that someone just like you, in the future, once you've rammed it through, is going to say, "How ugly! What were they THINKING when they built this monstrosity?"

Yeah, right.

This is getting out of hand. YOU are the one who would presume to pass judgment as a one person committee on what should and should not be built based on your admittedly nimby standards. We want to see infill happen organically which means giving individuals the power and freedom to build things occasionally out of synch with those such as yourself. Remember, at one time the Eiffel Tower was considered an eyesore by people just like you.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

In other words, migol84, YOUR idea of what's beautiful is DIFFERENT and couldn't POSSIBLY fall into a category that someone just like you, in the future, once you've rammed it through, is going to say, "How ugly! What were they THINKING when they built this monstrosity?"

Yeah, right.

Who's to say what people will think of in the future? That's not important. What's important is to build something that is more viable for the city. Designs will constantly evolve and tastes will constantly evolve as well. Fashions and trends come and go, c'est la vie.

All I know is that the awesome buildings that still continue to work today were and are good because they were multi-mix used projects and that is what Austin's current construction boom is trying to focus on. Austin was going the way of Dallas and Houston back in the 80s, when Austin experienced its last construction boom. Those buildings were terrible in my opinion... and they were terrible because they did not focus on combining a street vibrancy, unlike projects that are being built today.

[TexasHorseLady]

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?

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

How is using 9 stories as a max "strawman"? The discussion is to not allow high-rise development. 90 feet is high rise. To not allow high rise would it not need to be under 9 stories? How tall would you suggest THL's ceiling would be on what is acceptable?

Part of the problem with trying to have this discussion is that there is no clear, widely accepted definition for "high-rise" or "mid-rise" or even "sky-scraper." And I think by now it should be clear that we're using these terms in different ways.

Let's start with "skyscraper." The best you will get from the dictionary is "a very tall building." But I think we can probably all agree that at 47 stories, 655' in height, "to rival Austin's tallest building," as the May press release put it, this proposal qualifies as a skyscraper. And to quote your own description, with my emphasis added:

"The proposed height is 655 feet. So that will put 33' taller than the roof of the Austonian and only 28' shorter than the Austonian spire, and 182' taller than the roof on the 360 and 74' taller than the top of the 360's spire. So it would be a new tallest for Austin! Which would make our 3 tallest residential. But since it is higher up in elevation I imagine that it will look even taller than the Austonian. Probably by like 50 feet or so."

So even before we begin dancing with our various definitions of what is a mid-rise vs high-rise, let's be clear that the core issue here is whether or not the good folks of Austin will approve of the "new tallest for Austin!" at that location.

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.

Sale of Capitol complex property falls through amid opposition

Ironically, I don't think the opposition could ask for a better description of the planetarium tower project, and a potential nickname for it, than the one that Homeinatx just provided above:

"...it's kind of weird - off balance, asymmetrical, too skinny for its size, quirky for its surroundings, holds up its middle finger to the ghastly state offices that surround it."

Agreed. And in fact, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the Photoshopped skyline photo you created and posted elsewhere, which clearly shows how totally out of place this skyscraper would be in that location. It's just as insulting to the view as the aforementioned central digit, out there by itself, for all to apprehend.

SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - AUSTIN | Austin Planetarium & Residential Tower | 655 FT | 47 FLOORS

[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.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

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?

I dunno... get involved maybe? Push your elected officials and urge them to limit chains and have a good mix of local and chains in the mix. Its funny you mention San Francisco, because in some neighborhoods most notably the Mission District, its very hard for a chain to open up a franchise. Starbucks has tried opening up a location so many times but it always gets shot down. There are only a handful of chains around the Mission, like a few fast food joints and Walgreens, but that's it. So its also interesting that Alamo Draft House was able to get plans for a location there approved.

I also think that the local market in Austin being very strong will help these skyscrapers from limiting chains, and have actual local businesses. Just look around and see for yourself. How many chains have opened up in Downtown Austin since all these skyscrapers have been built and compare that to actual local venues/stores/restaurants? I'm willing to bet that Austin has been doing a much better job than Union Square here in San Francisco where there is literally nothing but chains all around.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by OpenD

It's just as insulting to the view as the aforementioned central digit, out there by itself, for all to apprehend.

SkyscraperPage Forum - View Single Post - AUSTIN | Austin Planetarium & Residential Tower | 655 FT | 47 FLOORS

I dunno man... this is the first time I've seen that photo and I have to say I disagree with you completely. I don't find it an insult... I find it a luxury and a compliment to the city of Austin.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

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?

Lady - if you were REALLY concerned with local businesses thriving you would cheer the developments that bring in people and foot traffic to the area. THIS is what local businesses thrive on - not central planning by provincial suburbanites.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by migol84

I dunno man... this is the first time I've seen that photo and I have to say I disagree with you completely. I don't find it an insult... I find it a luxury and a compliment to the city of Austin.

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.

[migol84]

Originally Posted by OpenD

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.

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.