Austin's Future Skyline (Georgetown, Paris, Llano: homes, live, zip codes)

[Austin97]

THL: As the city of austin (800K) grows to 1.6M, where are the extra 800K people going to live?

Your choices are

1) dont grow (not going to happen)
2) plan for them to live in a dense core
2a) dense core with many many short multi family buildings
2b) dense core with a few very tall buildings
3) plan for them to live in suburban sprawl

What other choices do you see?


2b will cause less acres of land to be bulldozed for multifamily housing and require less changes to road infrastructure.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Matter of fact, that is one reason I really, really strongly object to the planetarium tower plan. If allowed to go forward it would literally be a "block buster," opening the floodgates to other over-sized projects in that corridor which will serve to overwhelm the infrastructure and totally alter the visual horizon behind the Capitol complex.

Nope. I'm ok with the various highrise projects on tap for south of the Capitol development, but lets keep them in that area.

Sorry, the planetarium project is great, but I think it's the wrong place for a skyscraper.

Yes, that area is so very vibrant, what would we want with interesting architecture bringing a mix of residents, families, workers into all those wonderful parking lots and soulless state buildings!

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Yes, that area is so very vibrant, what would we want with interesting architecture bringing a mix of residents, families, workers into all those wonderful parking lots and soulless state buildings!

It's not an either/or situation, and I get tired of that being advanced as a justification for plopping down oversized structures just anywhere at all.

Redesign that planetarium as a mid-rise building that fits the existing neighborhood and I have no issue with it.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by dba07

thats a nice looking skyline! I wish SA wasnt still stuck in the 19th century. Our skyline sucks.

Some of those old near-empty office buildings in downtown San Antonio have gorgeous masonry & architectural detail.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

It's not an either/or situation, and I get tired of that being advanced as a justification for plopping down oversized structures just anywhere at all.

Redesign that planetarium as a mid-rise building that fits the existing neighborhood and I have no issue with it.

This nice thing about private property is buildings don't have to be designed by committee and attempt to please everyone with an opinion who thinks he knows what's best.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Austin97

THL: As the city of austin (800K) grows to 1.6M, where are the extra 800K people going to live? Your choices are

1) dont grow (not going to happen)
2) plan for them to live in a dense core
2a) dense core with many many short multi family buildings
2b) dense core with a few very tall buildings
3) plan for them to live in suburban sprawl

What other choices do you see?

4) Urban Villages. Create low-rise to mid-rise mixed-use developments throughout the city to spread infrastructure impact around, and keep the scale of the architecture to human proportions.

High-rise living is definitely not for everyone, so it's goofy to suggest that the only valid solution to population growth in Austin is a forest of high-rise development downtown.

And consider that the population center of Austin is now approximately where the Highland Mall is. And there is currently a lot of underutilized property in that general area. There are even a couple of MetroRail stops already installed in the area. And the ACC acquisition of the mall itself will surely spark new interest in the area. Why not look to that area for the next wave of urban growth?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by OpenD

4) Urban Villages. Create low-rise to mid-rise mixed-use developments throughout the city to spread infrastructure impact around, and keep the scale of the architecture to human proportions.

In their words, sprawl. Grow up or grow out.

[TexasHorseLady]

So sprawl of high rise buildings (which, frankly, is what it looks like we're getting, from the very well done graphic that started this thread) is an improvement?

Don't worry, you're getting your way, and Austin's on its way to being recreated as just another high-rise city rather than doing any outside the box thinking. But don't think you're going to get your way that everyone's going to think your preference is the best thing since sliced bread, because that's not going to happen as long as people are still using their brains.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by OpenD

It's not an either/or situation, and I get tired of that being advanced as a justification for plopping down oversized structures just anywhere at all.

Redesign that planetarium as a mid-rise building that fits the existing neighborhood and I have no issue with it.

OpenD and I have gone back and forth on this one quite fiercely for a good time now. lol. But I can understand where he is coming from.

I like tall interesting looking buildings. So I think it would be awesome. But what I think he is saying is more like a Washington D.C. or Paris type area. (please correct me if I have you wrong OpenD) But I don't think he is suggesting keeping the horrible wasteland of an area that is currently there between the Capital and UT. Vibrancy and beneficial projects like residences, museums, retail and offices can all be added together in mixed use fashion up there in mid-rise DC/Paris kinda environment.

The problem I have with that type of development is it requires widespread destruction of blocks. Like for the CBD that just isn't possible. Like much of the CBD has kick ass 19th Century buildings all over the place. So the available land tends to be small parts of the blocks. Even where the JW is going there are 3 tiny old 19th Century buildings at 3rd & Congress that they are protecting and building around kind of in the same way Silicon Labs build around Lambert's BBQ on 2nd Street by City Hall. So in the CBD it must be tall to be able to get the needed sq feet of space. You can't just go all Houston/Dallas and destroy all those old buildings in Austin.

I kinda agree what OpenD is saying works for up there is that in the way Austin (by that I mean the State) historically operated is they mowed down any and everything that used to exist between the State and UT and put up parking lots with a few of the most unwalkable friendly least vibrant office blocks in the US. East of Guad/Lavaca there is nothing desirable about the area pre-Bullock. It is all parking and horribly designed offices with no street interaction. So there is nothing to lose up there. Nothing to have to build around like in the CBD. It has all already been destroyed. DC/Paris mid rise density would work just fine since you have whole blocks to work with.

Me personally I love the look of the Planetarium and can't wait for it to be there.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So sprawl of high rise buildings (which, frankly, is what it looks like we're getting, from the very well done graphic that started this thread) is an improvement?
.

I guess you think you're being rhetorically clever, but you're simply wrong here. The high rise development, all located in the CBD is the antithesis of sprawl. To find sprawl, go to Cedar Park, Buda, Pfluegerville, Leander.