I Am So Popular: Open Letter To Jody Denberg
The Last Waltz Done Live At Club Deville
Review: The Cherry Orchard at The Blue Theater
Album Review: The Alchemy of Sunset's 'Gold Dissolves to Gray'
EAST Interview: Beth Hempton of The WonderCraft
An Austin Business Journal article last Friday assuaged some of our fears about the hike-and-bike trail gap. The article isn't 100% clear on the point, but it sounds like CWS Capital Partners is not going to rebuild the existing structures even if the variance they are seeking is not granted. According to the ABJ, Greg Miller, a VP at CWS, said if the variance is not granted CWS will build one big tower instead of three smaller towers. Also, no variance would mean CWS would not pay for the trail extension.
The city will probably build a boardwalk over some part of the gap whether CWS lets them build the trail on their property or not, partly in order to avoid having to negotiate with other developers. Even without property ownership/setback issues, the terrain just west of (and under) I-35 would probably require a boardwalk. Our beloved mayor is working with private sources to arrange funding. If you want to hear more about the CWS plan, the Planning Commission will hear their variance request at their meeting tomorrow night.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"beloved".
HA!
Congradulations of fucking up Town Lake savetownlake. You've 'saved' your property values under the guise of protecting the lake. You fucking douche bags. I hope you all rot in hell.
savetownlake = douche bags
Hey savetownlake, See you next Tuesday.
Just because the city needs to build 'some' boardwalk doesn't mean it's OK to roll over to the STL dilweeds and say we should boardwalk the whole gap. Boardwalks are very very expensive, and frankly, they're not as good as a real on-ground trail.
The boardwalk in this section should be dedicated to Save Town Lake, with a note that dog poop bagged there should be deposited in Travis Heights.
This is ridiculous. How is building a boardwalk out into the lake saving the lake? Isn't that going to disrupt the ecosystem? I think if they want to give us the trail there, let them give us the trail there and give them 50 feet. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Rekindle your fears, Shilli. The developer told the Planning Commission it intends to re-build the apartments within the primary setback if it does not get the variance. Just bluster? Dunno, but consider this: Save Town Lake claims the developer is only entitled to build up to a height of 96 feet outside of the 200-foot setback, rather than to a height of 200 feet. If that is true, then the existing units within the setback hold an even larger percentage of the property's development value, and will almost certainly be reconstructed.
The developer also pointed out that if the existing units were redeveloped and sold as condos, we would never get rid of them because it would take the unanimous consent of the condo owners.
The PC voted to deny the variance.
I'm convinced that every move the CoA makes is for personal gain and not the greater good. It's like there's crack running into the water fountains at 2nd St.
Just on a random condo note - did I hear correctly last night that there are just over 50 projects approved that are just now or are set to break ground in the next couple of years? This is not including the 20+ that are already in progress. Can someone please provide justification for this? I find it highly, highly, highly unlikely that our population will grow this quickly and I won't even talk about the fact that everyone is still driving everywhere. Population goal of 25K by 2010, yet we'll have enough condos for 5 times that amount of people...nah, they' not overbuilding.
"and I won't even talk about the fact that everyone is still driving everywhere."
Because it's not true, you reactionary retard.Plenty of people are taking the bus, biking, and walking, ESPECIALLY downtown.
I missed the part of the hearing when CWS was talking - all I saw was some old hippies with a guitar singing about how variances made them sad. If the net result of all this is that the existing structures get rebuilt, I will be very disappointed. I still can't tell whether STL wants that to happen. I think some do and some believe it won't. Also, some apparently don't realize there are structures there now.
Re overbuilding - some of the STL commenters pointed this out as well - I really don't understand how people can complain about overbuilding and lack of affordable housing in the same breath. OK, I do understand - limit supply to protect home values while asking for government sponsored projects for a token number of selected individuals. Still, it pisses me off. Also, Austin's population is growing by something like 50k people per year. There aren't going to be any empty condos - prices may come down, but no matter how many we build there will be plenty of people that want to live there.
I think the STLers want to keep the buildings low because they have nice sight-lines of downtown they don't want interrupted by tall buildings.
M1EK,
I was just saying that too many people still use their cars for everything. While there are more and more people utilizing alternate forms of transportation downtown, there are still just as many who drive to almost everything. Like you, I'd like to see us have people who live downtown that don't actually own a car and don't have to. Unfortunately, we are not there yet.
I'd like to segregate all the wealthy to one area of Austin with no out as well.
Guest #12: You are wrong. There are plenty of people who live downtown and don't drive, and there are plenty more who rarely drive, but even if every single one DID drive, we're still better off in aggregate than if those same people live in the suburbs (whether they work downtown or in another part of the suburbs).
Repeating this baseless implication that downtown people drive just as much is a load of crap. Even close-in non-downtown folks drive a lot _less_ (our family of 4, 2 drivers, gets by with one car at about 6,000 miles per year).
But if we don't herd up all the rich people downtown, how are we going to contain them when the zombies attack? Speaking of which, I hope these organizations can turn their attention to building the electric fences now that they've resolved this little issue. We need to those "protect" the wealthy.
"I still can't tell whether STL wants that to happen. I think some do and some believe it won't. Also, some apparently don't realize there are structures there now."
Shilli:
Commissioner Kirk asked Laura Morrison directly whether we should enforce the 200-foot setback even if it meant sticking ourselves with condos in the primary setback in perpetuity.
Laura Morrison's response: It is the "mandate of the people" to enforce the Waterfront Overlay, regardless. (If she's going to run for council, she needs to learn how to equivocate).
Last night's hearing convinced me that STL is perfectly willing to sacrifice green space on that site if it helps the fight against tall buildings across from Travis Heights. Height, rather than the setback, is its main target.
I think that when people in Austin find out that STL has screwed them out of green space along this stretch of Town Lake, they're going to be mad. Unfortunately, there's no way to hold STL accountable.
Interesting. At least she is maintaining a consistent position and acting in line with her goals. If STL wants to do what it can to inhibit high-rise development and doesn't particularly care about a trail extension or park space, then they should be doing exactly what they have been doing. I would disagree that taking actions resulting in buildings closer to the shore constitutes "saving" town lake, but whatever.
I have to admit that I was never particularly excited about this development - it isn't on the street grid and probably won't have ground floor retail. Residents would almost certainly be car dependent for every trip other than to the trail. I'd rather see more park space added there, but as long as the boardwalk goes through I think it is not a major loss.
That said, I really don't understand the aversion to height. This is pretty close to the center of downtown Austin. There are plenty of other tall buildings nearby, and soon there will be many more. I understand that the people that are opposed to this one are probably opposed to all of them, but why? This is the downtown of a major city - what is wrong with having tall buildings here?
M1EK,
The greatest thing about you is even when people agree with you, you still want to argue with them just for the sake of arguing.
Guest #18,
How exactly is this:
"Like you, I'd like to see us have people who live downtown that don't actually own a car and don't have to. Unfortunately, we are not there yet."
agreeing with my contention that there are plenty of people downtown who don't own a car and plenty more who do but rarely drive it?
"Unfortunately, there's no way to hold STL accountable."
There is a way to hold them accountable. Refuse to do business with the lawyers that worked on this case or any of the businesses associated with STL.
It's going to be interesting to see how long STL sticks around now that they've got what they wanted. I'm looking forward to seeing if they're still in it to Save Town (Lady Bird) Lake now that this issue is resolved.
There are sponsors that you can hold accountable:
http://www.savetownlake.org/sponsors.html
I see that the Austin Chronicle is a "Waterfall Sponsor" ($2,500 donated). I wonder if that includes the in-kind donation of slanted "news" coverage?
Michael King has responded a few times now to criticism of the Chronicle piece here:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=549534
Definitely worth a read, probably worth a response.