CWS May Withhold Land to Close Hike and Bike Trail Gap

Being fat, lazy americans any place not within a 5 minute walk is not considered "walkable".

Non-fat, non-lazy folks with a tolerance for 100 degree heat can ride their bikes from that part of Riverside to cool stuff in '04 or the office downtown.

But, why would those folks pony up the tall dollars for a luxury condo when they can get a home for less money in the nearby neighborhoods?

You can walk downtown from 322 Riverside unless you're terribly out of shape. You can also ride your bike to Zilker and places along South Lamar.

Good point shilli. There's a little bit of "walkable suburban" starting to develop around Bridges on the Park, but that's pretty lame compared to downtown or older midrise parts of town. To be fair, though, the walkiest old neighborhoods in town are partly suburban crap too - for instance, the Fresh Plus in Clarksville requires that I walk through a (small) parking lot to get there; the Galaxy has parking out front; etc.

SolMan, I think you are right and it is one of the reasons I don't particularly care whether this development gets built (seeing the trail completed is my only dog in the fight). It is a big problem with most of the development in south Austin and the development near Rainey Street. There hasn't been any urban fabric there before (no pedestrian friendliness, specifically no ground floor retail), so the developers are saying there is no market for it and not building it. Instead, they are building suburban mindset structures that are simply denser than what they are replacing.

What I meant to say, is that the only place to walk to from that location is Thundercloud. If you don't work at the Statesman, you're going to be in your car every day anyway. That's a big contrast to downtown, so they'll have to beat downtown prices.

My bet is that this won't get built for a while, variance or not. A couple of big condo projects in South Austin have already been put on hold: the Magnolia on S. Lamar and the big Hyatt redevelopment.

I'm totally lusting after the condos downtown. Hell, even Barton Place. But I don't see much attraction to this location other than the lake view. And, you'll get those much cheaper on the redeveloping east side of the south shore. Or, buy a unit at Town Lake Towers or Milago.

If you're downtown, you're in a multi-use environment. If you're at 322 Riverside, the only place you can walk to in

Seems like they'll have to undercut prices for existing close-in '04 neighborhoods. And with high rise construction costs running $200/sq ft, that won't be easy.

I'd say CWS has done a poor job of PR and will just have to admit "defeat". They'll still build the high rise condos on the land by Riverside and they'll turn the buildings along the shore into upscale units with great views of downtown.

The losers are people like me who like to run that section of Town Lake. Well, unless I decide to buy a condo in the tower. Then I'll get privileged access to Town Lake while the rest of the public gets shut out. That existing pool right on the shoreline looks nice. It would have been a shame to remove that just so the public has someplace to walk their dogs...

heyzeus,

A lot of people who don't have any affiliation with them are pointing out that at 200 feet, it's awfully hard to see how they can do anything but redevelop in existing footprint. The property isn't all THAT wide.

CWS already tried to open with a lowball. Originally they were asking to build 80 feet from the shore. Bluff called. Now they're asking for 150 feet. Same result. They can keep trying their extortionary "if the city doesn't give us our valuable variance, we'll take our offer of trail land and go home" tactic, but it isn't working. Everyone knows they want the trail built because their property is worth more with it. They just don't want to have to pay an architect to reconfigure again based on a 200 foot setback.

Toughest crowd??? Four members of Council have come out against before they've seen any presentation.

Dear last guest (Jeff Jack, is that you?): The Parks Board is likely the toughest crowd the developer would face. Opening with a lowball offer with them would have been pointless. This is from direct, personal, experience while I was on the UTC - they (PB) are zealots.

The Planning Commission is full of realists and downright responsible. The City Council is somewhere in between.

Why should the City, at this point, cut a deal and grant the variances? The developer has only gone to the Parks Board -- they still have to go to Planning Commission and Council. What incentive does the City have to negotiate to get more from the developer if they give away the farm at the first step of the process? You who would encourage the City to so easily capitulate to developers seeking variances from the waterfront overlay, please call me -- I'd love to sell you a used car or two.

The cost of JUST that portion of boardwalk was estimated elsewhere to be over a million and a half. And a short section of boardwalk to the east followed by more trail would still be worth achieving.

If this particular compromise is rejected, I can confidently state that we won't see any more on-land trail portions available, ever. If this compromise is accepted, who's to say a similar deal can't be struck on the other parcels?

That is a solid point, myname. If we are going to build a boardwalk no matter what, then this isn't such a big deal. I would rather see the shoreline as park land, but as long as the loop is complete, that works for me.

While it doesn't really matter, the current portion of the trail on this land is small. Since this is an "L-shaped" lot the trail goes Westbound from the creek (just past the Condos which are not part of this discussion.) to the TXDot building/parking lots. Total length is maybe 150 feet past a parking lot where the existing apartments sit and a Capmetro bus stop. It is not shaded. Once you hit the TXDot portion of the trail it is shaded. The sidewalk needs replacing as it is very uneven and cracking now.

Since the existing condos east of the land in question(really just more two-story apartments that were converted years ago and sit even closer to the shore) are not going anywhere, if the trail is to move away from Riverside they will have to build an off-land boarkwalk there. So either you extend the boardwalk all the way to the Statesman land or you end it at the CWS land (if they give it up). The cost of that portion of the boardwalk is the real price of the variance that needs to be calculated.

150 feet is a fair compromise. The developer gives something, and the city gives something.

Guest 9, your plan would be to have people come up off the trail, through the Statesman parking lot, around TXDOT along Riverside drive, past the new car entrance to whatever CVS builds, and then somehow re-connect with a new portion of the trail behind the other developers' property? That sounds miserable (similar to the current situation). The hike and bike trail is popular because it is by the lake. Detouring through parking lots and along busy streets sucks. If the city doesn't get the entire shoreline, it is a loss.

Do you know exactly where you're talking about? The sidewalk by the CWS property is straight and there's plenty of room to be well away from the curb and in the shade. You may be thinking of the sidewalk where Blunn Creek runs under and overpass, along by where the Magic Time Machine / Landry's / Joe's Crab Shack is. There, it *is* curving and dangerous, especially with the entrance to the parking lot, but down by the CWS property, which is much, much closer to Congress, it's a different story.

heyzeus,

Obviously the land is worth something - they bought knowing that they could do one of two things: rebuild at the existing footprint (and make some money) or get a variance, rebuild farther away but taller, and make some more money.

The question of how much money they do or don't make is no business of ours, it's true, but that stands for the Save Town Lake guys apopleptic about developer profits just as much as it does about crocodile-tears for developer losses. The only question worth answering is: does the CITY (NOT just Jeff Jack's band of South Austin NIMBYs) get more value than we give away.

bouldin

CWS bought with full knowledge of the setback law. Never believe a developer when they cry "but the land will be worthless without this variance!" No, the land will just be worth more with it. And by granting it, every other developer in the state will have the exact same claim when they come to the City Council. Offering a nice bribe to the city in the form of the land for the trail was smart, because the trail extension benefits their property greatly. A gift that keeps on giving to themselves. It will get built.

RT, thanks - I thought this was the peninsula off Lakeshore across the lake from Holly Street Power Plant. Everyone will have to trust me that there are some really nice parts of the trail on the other side of I-35. I don't see any pics on Flickr, probably because not many people get over to that side.

Guest 4, the Riverside sidewalk is hardly safe - you are on a curvy road with nothing between you and speeding SUVs that just came off the highway. To me, extending the hike and bike trail is the primary issue. I don't care whether this project gets built, what CVS knows or what profit they make. I don't have any problem with buildings getting built 150 feet from shore. This is an urban park, not some trail out in the wilderness. It is perfectly reasonable to grant a variance in order to get the property owner to make a concession - if anything that is the most common use for variances. Here, the developer is giving up his right to rebuild structures currently in place. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

The sidewalk in fromt of 300 / 322 East Riverside is one of the better and safer sidewalks anywhere in town. It's wide and it's shady and it's safe. Any short extension of the hike and bike trail along this stretch is a side issue. CWS knew about overlay restrictions from the beginning and will make a good profit in any event; variances are to be granted on the grounds of hardship and there's no hardship here.

The "peninsula" picture is actually across from Auditorium Shores... I know what you mean, but you have to get your facts right.

But you can't get to the part of the trail east of I-35 and south of the river (including the part shown in the pic) without going on Riverside unless you go all the way around and cross the Pleasant Valley bridge (and then turning around to get back). The whole part of the trail east of Congress, and especially east of I-35, would be much more accessible if the gap was closed and you could make the loop without ever getting on Riverside. The trail west of Congress gets crowded, especially on the weekends, but east of I-35 is almost always near empty.

Closing the gap would definitely be a great thing and I am all for it, but people who say they *have* to run on Riverside between the Statesman and I35 now are either dumb or insincere. There are wide safe pedestrian bridges across the river at I35 and at Congress and 1st. The trail on the north side of the river between those is great. Cross those bridges and you get see and you avoid the admittedly very pedestrian unfriendly riverside portion completely. You're out there to exercise anyway so crossing a couple of bridges won't kill you...but running on Riverside might.