Austinist: Council Weighs Green Options

sandwichrobot

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:50:22 -0600

Loudmouth - How did you become so wise in the ways of, according to all of your very humble comments on the austinist, nearly every discipline? Your ideas are brilliant and your insight breathtaking. Your even-handed and calculated approach to modern social issues makes even Socrates seem dogmatic. I hope you never halt your campaign to impose your amazing thoughts on us all! Bravo!

mdahmus

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:49:10 -0600

The greenest possible suburban home in the entire universe is still dirtier than the standard high-rise condo. Think transportation emissions, and pavement-per-capita. And again, those units would be provided in the suburbs were there real demand, absent the ability to do so downtown. Look at Silicon Valley (one giant suburb): plenty of corporate apartments - just in suburban apartment complexes instead of high-rises. Likewise with 2nd homes - a 2nd home in a condo in Austin quite likely displaces an alternative 2nd home on the lake or somewhere else.

ducknutz

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:11:43 -0600

Assuming that all the high rise units are owned by people that live in them full time as opposed to units that are investments, 2nd (or 3rd?) homes, or owned by businesses that use them to entertain clients / employees. Besides, suburban homes are getting greener and greener every year. I'm shocked at what improvements I've seen in construction lately. I'm a duck dude. I live outdoors. You can see me hangin on Town Lake quite a bit.

mdahmus

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:56:25 -0600

ducknutz, the proper comparison is "200-unit highrise vs. parking lot PLUS two hundred suburban homes". And by that metric, the highrise rules like a big slobberin' dawg. The character downtown comes from people actually being out and about - and there's more of it every day. Get out of your car sometime and walk around. There's a long ways to go, still, but it's already miles ahead of where it was just a few years ago.

ducknutz

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:40:02 -0600

Frankly, Austin could use some more downtown parking lots. And I'm not convinced that highrises with all their electric use, A/Cs runnning, sewage and what-not is greener than a parking lot. Calculate the energy consumption, sewage, trash, and carbon of a parking lot. It's probably zilch. But I could be wrong. And it's sad that the downtown water plant has to go. It has so much more character than the lifeless Blade Runner buildings I see going up these days. I guess it just doesn't produce enough green to justify keeping it around any longer.

shilli

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:06:44 -0600

This isn't quite "raw land" Ducknutz - it is a decommissioned water treatment plant. Personally, I'd rather see 2 million square feet of space put on these six acres instead of putting it on 250 acres of actual raw land in the future suburbs (assuming 8000 square feet per acre). I understand the correlation is not exact - building downtown doesn't necessarily mean not building in the suburbs - but as long as Austin is growing, I'd like to see us doing everything we can to make it grow tall and skinny instead of short and fat.

mdahmus

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:05:51 -0600

You know what's really green? Putting up high-rises where surface parking lots used to be. Which is what 99% of the construction around here actually is - not the "OMG trees and houses getting torn down for COND0ES!!!1".

ducknutz

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:10:18 -0600

I have a house in South Austin, just for the record. You know what would be really Green? If Austin quit tearing down trees and raw land and building condos and office buildings. But I guess there's too much green involved to be really Green, know what I mean?

mdahmus

Fri, 30 May 2008 20:14:56 -0600

LM, when you're whining about people building high-rises, you get lumped in with the anti-density zealots, who like to tell people how much they can build on their land. Nobody on my side ever tells people like Karen McGraw or Laura Morrison that their plans for their home aren't dense _enough_. That's the difference.

LoudMouth

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:55:25 -0600

I grew up in a shack in the country. I wish we had zoning regulations because it sucked to get sick from all the mold every time it rained. I also don't see where anyone is saying what can and can't and should and shouldn't be built any more than you are.

mdahmus

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:50:28 -0600

LM, it ain't Hyde Park. Not that that matters. I don't think I should have any more of a voice on what people do with their property than you or he does - which is to say, very little. I want people to be able to have a larger number of things they can do with their own property than they do today. You guys, apparently, do not. You want to tell people what to do with their property as much or even more than we do today - but the problem is that you view this as somehow the natural state of affairs just because you grew up under a zoning regime in which everything but suburban crap was outlawed.

LoudMouth

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:00:30 -0600

That's rich. Dude that owns a house in Hyde Park telling apartment renters that they can't have a voice on the future of Austin's downtown. Priceless. Really. Just remarkable that you'd even go there, mdahmus.

mdahmus

Fri, 30 May 2008 14:54:11 -0600

The great thing about your apartment in South Austin is that if you like it so much, you should shut up about what people want to do with downtown, shouldn't you?

ducknutz

Fri, 30 May 2008 13:21:52 -0600

The great thing about Manhattan is that it's in New York. Austin doesn't need to be like NYC or LA or any other the other fancy-pants cities. If those places are so damn awesome, why are they all moving here? And I'm doing fine in South Austin. I have no desire to live downtown in a glorified apartment.

mdahmus

Fri, 30 May 2008 11:41:53 -0600

Or a shorter version of that: even a totally non-green urban high-rise is still much greener than the greenest possible suburban subdivision, per capita (as shown recently by the carbon rankings of New York as #2 even with all the heating they need to do), so we'd better make sure we don't discourage the high-rise too much more than we already do.

shilli

Fri, 30 May 2008 11:19:59 -0600

Elvislives, I appreciate your comment and I have a lot of respect for the LEED program. As you mention, the city has leverage in this case, so it is able to impose more stringent requirements on this development. I would prefer to use the city's leverage here to maximize the development's improvement of life in downtown Austin and put more stringent sustainability and affordability requirements not only on this development, but on all developments at a citywide (or statewide or nationwide) level. I think there are two categories of sustainability improvements - those that save money and those that cost money. I think at this point most developers are putting in place those sustainability improvements that save money, so the requirements we are talking about are those that cost money. That money has to come from somewhere - the developer, the people that buy the condos or rent the retail space, or the city/taxpayers (reality is probably a combination of the three). My concern is that by imposing higher environmental costs only on this development (or downtown development in general) and not imposing similar costs on suburban development, we are effectively encouraging/subsidizing suburban development at the expense of urban development. That hurts both your goal of a sustainable Austin and my goal of an urban Austin. I think the same logic applies to affordability. I think sustainability and affordability are both worthy goals, but this project is not a unique opportunity to improve Austin's overall sustainability or overall affordability. This project is a unique opportunity to improve the lives of downtown residents, so that is what I think the city council should try to do.

LoudMouth

Fri, 30 May 2008 01:02:07 -0600

They are overbuilding though and I will say that's a good thing. I was looking up home prices on some website yesterday that had googlemaps with homes for sell on top of it and it looks like prices are falling despite what the Austin Business Joke says.

LoudMouth

Fri, 30 May 2008 00:55:06 -0600

Did I say a word about anything here? And where the fuck do I go after I get priced out of Lamar and Rundberg?

Grape Ape

Thu, 29 May 2008 22:31:23 -0600

I think the key here is doing/choosing what is right. Affordable means so many different things to so many different people. Yeah, we'd all like to pay a $500 a month mortgage and live on the shores of Town Lake, but that is unrealistic. Shilli and elvislives both have good points here. Sorry LoudMouth, looks like you're stuck with ducknutz on Lamar and Rundberg...

elvislives

Thu, 29 May 2008 21:58:26 -0600

Agreed, urban development does much more for Austin's sustainability than suburban development. But that's like stating that a Prius gets better gas mileage than a Land Cruiser. A specific development proposal is exactly the place where innovative design theories should manifest. Especially in the public/private relationship that this project will maintain, whether the requirments be sustainability, affordable housing or pedestrian friendly serviceable needs. The city has a choice in whom they agree to enter into partnership with - and the leverage to enact specific demands the developer must maintain. But it takes the right players to bring the right minds to the drawing board, someone who can see "the big picture". And in this case I feel the city received 5 all too similar designs, each with a short term vision suited to feel dated long before the new urbanistic condos at the Domain reach 80% occupancy. I just don't see any ambition in these proposals that build on the strength of Austin as a progressive US city - sustainable, affordable or otherwise. Respectfully, I maintain that a project of this magnitude in a city of Austin's purported "stature" should be held in higher regard than merely providing urban infill over suburban sprawl. There is a real opportunity here that I feel has been missed by these design professionals. I don't want to make fun but it's the HEB logo in one of the graphics that has generated the most enthusiasm for any of the designs. Hey, I would love to have an affordable grocery store to walk to in downtown Austin but let's keep our eyes focused on the big prize here. That said, I do realize that some of the holes in a masterplan are often filled by the developer by the time the actual delivered product arrives. For instance, Catellus at the Mueller Development (while many ills can be spoken of their affordable housing developments) has provided Ausin with the sustainable and innovative Dell Children's Hospital (currently seeking LEED Platinum) and the first LEED Platinum project in Central Texas, the Ronald McDonald House. http://austinist.com/2008/05/29/ronald_mcdonald.php It is my hope that whichever developer the city enters into contract with will be held to multiple standards of design excellence. And be measured by a greater standard than the irresistible draw of low, low prices.

mdahmus

Thu, 29 May 2008 21:04:57 -0600

Yeah. Real cities have single-family houses and cul-de-sacs and strip malls and surface parking lots downtown. Like Manhattan.

ducknutz

Thu, 29 May 2008 19:44:57 -0600

Just what we need. More condos and hotels. All of these really rule!

mdahmus

Thu, 29 May 2008 17:12:41 -0600

shilli for the win.

shilli

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:49:59 -0600

I think making this decision based on innovation in sustainability would be a mistake. Innovative sustainable energy plans need to be put in place at a much higher level (national/international). A specific development proposal isn't the right place for experimental plans. Austin's good intentions re climate change aren't going to stop global warming and cramming solar panels onto these six acres isn't going to make us energy independent. An urban development like this is much more sustainable than suburban development purely by virtue of form. Green roofs and water re-use are just icing. Promoting more urban development and discouraging sprawl would do more to improve Austin's sustainability than anything that could have been included in these proposals. Similarly, I think making this decision based on the amount of included affordable housing would be a miskake. I personally question the efficacy of the subsidy model for affordable housing. All of these proposals would dramatically increase downtown housing supply, which will result in more affordable housing for everyone. I think the primary basis for making this proposal should be the development's impact on life in downtown Austin. Which would create the most pedestrian friendly environment? Which would give residents what they need to live downtown? Which most reduces the need to drive? On that basis, I think Stratus and Forest City are the best proposals (in any case, I think they are as good as the others on sustainability and affordability).

staggerlee

Thu, 29 May 2008 15:07:28 -0600

Personally I agree 100% with elvislives. All 5 of these plans fail to impress. Only Trammel Crow & Simmons Vedder offer any concrete ideas / plans for sustainable energy beyond "low flow shower heads (Forest City)." And while I agree that supporting urban living with real, affordable, groceries (i.e. anything but Whole Foods) is sorely needed downtown, the rest of the Stratus proposal elicits no more than an "eh..." from me. It'd be better to just require the winner (hopefully someone with more innovative sustainable energy plans) to incorporate a WF alternative. Come on - Austin is better than this.

ccosart

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:43:39 -0600

I'm glad that Stratus does more than just But does anyone else find calling 220% of MFI, "moderate" a little off. I mean by definition if you make 100% MFI + $1 your household makes more than half of the other households in the area. If you are making 220% MFI you are making well more than double what households who are already in the top half are making. That makes you affluent by any sane person's measure, not "moderate income". The fact that 220% MFI might need set asides to afford it just shows the degree to which we are not meeting demand for urban living. The ONLY way we'll ever do that is to allow infill in the neighborhoods around downtown too...

ccosart

Thu, 29 May 2008 13:15:21 -0600

As I commented on the Chron website in response to this quote: "At Mueller, Catellus has continued to raise the bar for affordable housing and sustainable building practices with each phase, beyond its contractual obligation." Um...there has only been one phase at Mueller so far. And it had about 19% affordable housing. They'll have to do over 25% in the future just to meet their minimum. Plus there is a HUGE gap between the affordable and market housing which in practice means middle class families are excluded from Mueller. Sure, this might be addressed in Phase 2, but I hope no one is holding their breath...

Mike Agresta

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:57:50 -0600

Thanks. That works. I really like the recessed balcony design in Simmons Vedder (I find balconied skylines kind of gross and spiderish and I see Austin moving that way.) But I'm into the Stratus HEB with a swimming pool on the roof... why not a Target too?

Slickshu

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:44:46 -0600

Go with the HEB. Finally we'll have something downtown for the entire community and not just for the zum zum boutique crowd.

elvislives

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:40:42 -0600

The sustainability card in planning and architecture needs to be pushed further for Austin to be able to continue to boast itself as one of the "greenest cities" around. Take a minute to look at what is being planned in other cities around the world (not just Texas) and weigh that within context against what any of the 5 candidates proposed. One example, Australia's Greenest Development: http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/04/21/australias-most-sustainable-development-by-foster-nouvel/ Another example, Beijing's solar-capturing LED building skin: http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/05/19/greenpix-zero-energy-media-wall-lights-up-beijing/ Can you imagine using this technology to broadcast live performances during SXSW or ACL episode tapings? Where are the groundbreaking ideas in these 5 proposals? Why is our civic leadership not pushing for more than what the author correctly identified as "so 20th Century" ideas? I'm all for having more services dedicated to serving the urban residents, but opportunities for 6 prime acres of urban development don't come around very often. It would be a shame for this project to only distinguish itself as "progressive" by incorporating a grocery store. "The norm" shouldn't be something that Austin dedicates it's future to, which is how many of its current developments project. I guess I just feel like all 5 candidates failed to do something special.

shilli

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:27:55 -0600

I guess posting a link directly to the survey site didn't work. I changed it to a link to the main site, which has the survey link. I think if you click through there it will work.

kingkirbythegreatoftexas

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:20:14 -0600

It won't let me take it either. Trammell Crow and Stratus are the best.

Mike Agresta

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:13:03 -0600

weird, i couldn't take the survey, said i'd already taken it. is the link right? maybe it's cause i took their previous survey about a month ago about waller creek. nice post.

mdahmus

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:08:54 -0600

Finally, somebody else who has been underwhelmed by Mueller and isn't afraid to say it. I agree with the HEB tout de suite.

Elizabeth S.

Thu, 29 May 2008 12:00:32 -0600

I think my fave is the Simmons Vedder plan, but the Stratus and Forest City proposals have strong points in their favor.