Austinist: Travis House: Historic Landmark or Intel-like Eyesore?

Thinman

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:28:11 -0600

This is from Mike Wachs, who spoke in favor of preserving the building, summarized Monday night’s meeting: "Susan Villarreal, a staffer for the Historic Preservation Office, made the recommendation to zone Travis House historic. Four representatives (contractor, architect, company spokesman, and property manager) of the developer spoke against this recommendation and in favor of demolition. They believed it was not historic and noted the regular use of the building by drug users and trespassers. They said the interior of the building was in bad shape. When questioned by the commission about their intended use for the site, the owners responded that plans had not been finalized. Two citizens spoke in favor of preservation. The commission then approved a motion to begin research that would support a possible historic designation." It goes to another committee and then to the City Council. thinman

mdahmus

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:39:37 -0600

Monkster, they put me on because I was on the facebook group. I have not decided whether to make any kind of real endorsement in the race. Here's what an endorsement actually looks like (or 'vocal support'): http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000583.html Since, as shilli points out, neither of the credible candidates for mayor is going to do jack squat about the McMansion ordinance, there's not a lot of point basing one's vote on that particular issue, or even spending a lot of time talking about it, unless you're some kind of disingenuous jackass trying to score cheap points. If one was to make a point about the issue, though, one might note that the implied bargain (VMU in return for McMansion) was supported much more strongly by McCracken than Leffingwell, albeit not strong enough as of late for my taste.

Monkster

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:11:08 -0600

So you don't endorse or support Brew Crack? Interesting. Did they add your name to the list under the term "supporters" without your consent? Shilli, I don't disagree with your assessment, but Mike was exceedingly vitriolic in his rants against McMansion and candidates that he associated with it in previous cycles. I thought he might show the same disdain now that its top proponent was up, but no.

Shawn Shillington

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:12:33 -0600

Tough to find anyone currently running for mayor that is opposed to the McMansion ordinance, so that seems like an odd criterion for determining whom to support. The votes this Thursday on the waterfront ordinance may be more useful (if anyone votes against it).

mdahmus

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:52:45 -0600

You used the words "endorsement" and "vocal support". Care to rephrase?

Monkster

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:33:38 -0600

His list of supporters is graced with your name out and proud.

mdahmus

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:23:55 -0600

LoudMouth, it's good to know you still get it as much as you ever do. Hint: New urbanists don't ban single-family houses. They allow more things than just that in relatively close proximity compared to the strict segregation of the suburbs; then leave it up to you to decide which one you want.

mdahmus

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:20:59 -0600

Where have you ever seen an endorsement or vocal support from me of a mayoral candidate? I'm very enthusiastic about Chris Riley in Place 1. Heck, I wish he was running for mayor. Beyond that, I'm wondering what you think you saw from me. As for the specifics: VMU almost makes up for McMansion (some evidence there was an implicit bargain there between Morrison's crew and McCracken), if neighborhoods hadn't been allowed to make the opt-out process a laughingstock. http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2009/03/complete-and-utter-capitulation.html

mattgrundy

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:45:50 -0600

It is one of Austin's few pre-war apartment buildings, it must be preserved at any reasonable cost. It isn't a landmark-quality building in most major cities, but Austin has a paucity of nice older buildings, so it deserves to be protected.

leggyblonde

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:36:09 -0600

why do we care what mike thinks? is this a cereal commercial?

Monkster

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:35:02 -0600

Correct, hence the question, why his endorsement and vocal support of Brew Crack, the father of McMansion? With the background you have provided, I must assume that he's either come around to finding McMansion to be positive, or he has no principles. What do you think, Mr. Shilli?

Shawn Shillington

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:50:46 -0600

What Mike thinks of McMansion: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000308.html http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000350.html See also: http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2006/09/reason_no_3_to_.html

Monkster

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:33:51 -0600

Mike, what do you think of the McMansion ordinance?

LoudMouth

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:30:46 -0600

SPRAWLER!!!

mdahmus

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:14:15 -0600

Monkster, I'm mad as heck but too busy to crackplog from the hospital. You can assume that 95% of the time if Jeff Jack is agin' it, it's a good idea. LoudMouth, I am wedged between a duplex on one side, a house with garage apartment on the other, and a small block of apartments behind me. I'd also have a garage apartment sometime down the road if the single-family-only-zealots hadn't banned them on my block a few years ago.

wattage

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:21:44 -0600

If you've actually gone to look at the 19 remaining lofts, which I'm going to guess you have not, more than half of them are the worst layouts in that building. Due to support columns, positioning of the windows (or maybe lack thereof in some units), etc these units probably should have been priced lower than equivalent square foot units in the same building that already sold. The few I saw, I'd describe the floorplans best as "weird" or "craggy". It's common sense that if you could buy a 1000 sqr foot place that's functional vs a 1000 sqr foot place where 200 sqr feet are useless and they are priced the same.. you'd pick the first place. Not sure why the developers didn't make these units priced to their flaws in the first place. Anyway, one data point of one building selling it's last 19 units (out of 140+) isn't really an indicator of condos selling (or not selling). Every building has its peculiarities; in this case, the building doesn't have a pool or parking (you get free valet parking across the street in another lot which is interesting).

LoudMouth

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:13:53 -0600

Also, mdahmus, are you still living in a sprawling, suburban, single family house?

Monkster

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:13:49 -0600

There's no need to tear this building down and add it to a landfill -- it's perfectly adaptable to another positive use. I'm not convinced that it's historic, but it would benefit from an owner with a creative eye to recognize it's potential. Mike, why aren't you hopping mad about Jeff Jack's Waterfront Overlay ordinance -- talk about something that promote sprawl! These folks want to turn the clock back to 1986, force us all to live in Buda or Cedar Park. Crazy.

LoudMouth

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:11:31 -0600

Yeah, those condos sure are hot properties. Everyone is buying them up. http://www.highrises.com/austin/brazos-place-condos/ NOT!

mdahmus

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:53:42 -0600

Yeah! Condos are the problem, not the thousands upon thousands of single-family homes in the sprawling crap surrounding our burg. It's much worse to have condos where some of the residents can walk or bike or take the bus to work or other destinations. What is this, Soviet Russia? Down with condos! Condos down with you!

Wes

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:48:40 -0600

It's not a bad looking building but there's probably a better use for the land. Knock it down.

RonB

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:09:25 -0600

It is only an eyesore because it isn't being used. The building itself is a good looking building, it would be great to see someone turn it into something useful. That being said - if it were to be torn down, I don't think it is a bad solution, unless it is just for more crappy condos.

itza

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:07:32 -0600

What's important are the other buildings on the lot. There's the Enspire building next door (where my boyfriend used to work), and next to that, the Dog and Duck Pub. There's been talk for years about how the lot owners have wanted to get permission to knock this building down, along with the rest of them. So how much do we love pub grub, is the real question! Also, could the fires have been set by the firefighters themselves? They have used this building for practice in the past. My boyfriend would tell me how firemen would often go running around with firehoses, sometimes dousing the windows over at Enspire.

causal observer

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:12:11 -0600

EYESORE! Let's knock it down and put some condos up!