Give me a [yeah/nay] for the Spring
First it was announced. Then it was recommended, with some modification, by city staff. Thursday is the big enchilada; a vote by the City Council. Why does the City Council need to vote on a building? Because the Spring requires a waiver from current zoning ordinances to be built as proposed. Specifically, the agenda item reads:
Z- 18 C14-05-0136 – Spring Condominiums – Conduct a public hearing and approve an ordinance amending Chapter 25-2 of the Austin City Code by rezoning property locally known as West 3rd Street and Bowie Street (Town Lake Watershed) from downtown mixed use (DMU) district zoning to downtown mixed use-central urban redevelopment (DMU-CURE) combining district zoning with conditions. Zoning and Platting Commission Recommendation: To grant downtown mixed use-central urban redevelopment-conditional overlay (DMU-CURE-CO) combining district zoning with conditions.
The public hearing preceeding the vote should be interesting. There is big money at stake in this development, and it has become the focus of controversy among many community groups. No promises, but there might be some entertaining fireworks on hand for those brave enough to wait around. The likely talking points:
- Pro-Spring
- Central densification is a desirable goal of the city, and the Spring is an important contributor to this goal.
- As a residential project, the Spring will generate far fewer trips than a commercial development like Whole Foods, and promotes walking to nearby shopping.
- The Spring does not encroach on traditional neighborhoods or Town Lake, sitting East of Lamar in what many already consider to be Downtown.
- Increased property values from the Spring will contribute substantial tax revenues to the city, with no subsidies going to the development.
- Its “point tower” design is attractive and unobtrusive.
- Anti-Spring
- The Spring is completely out of scale with surrounding buildings and even taller than buildings allowed in the Central Business District (CBD).
- The zoning change is sought using a tool (“CURE” zoning) that is intended to stabilize neighborhoods along principal roadways, enhance the natural environment, and promote affordable housing. The Spring does none of these.
- A “spot” zoning change is an unfair giveaway, granting these developers the ability to gain 400-ft. profits from land that was priced for 120-ft. development without giving anything back to the community.
- This project violates the intent of the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) district as a buffer between high-rise density and established neighborhoods.
- This decision will encourage incompatible spillover. Developers are already asking for “downtown” (DMU) height South of the river in anticipation of winning the next zoning lottery.
- The explosion in surrounding property values will destabilize local businesses, pushing out the art and entertainment establishments that are an integral part of Austin’s quality of life and downtown lifestyle.
- The Spring will encroach on the openness of Town Lake, and add a looming and solitary presence to the Austin skyline.
Most of these points will come from the Spring developers and neighborhood activists, but I’m sure that speakers at the public hearing will offer plenty of other, more entertaining, issues. If you wish to speak, you can sign up in support or against the project down at City Hall. Bring your voice and let the council hear your opinions. And you’ll probably want to bring something to read; the hearing is late on the agenda, and may extend from afternoon to evening.
I’d say “Nay”. I live just up the street, and I think having a building of this size would really change the character of the area for the worse.
Two cons which are inaccurate (the rest are ones with which I respectfully disagree):
1. “The Spring is completely out of scale with surrounding buildings and even taller than buildings allowed in the Central Business District (CBD).”. First is true; second is false. The Spring could easily be built in CBD zoning. Buildings as big or bigger are further along in the planning pipeline, although not yet under construction.
2. “The explosion in surrounding property values will destabilize local businesses, pushing out the art and entertainment establishments that are an integral part of Austin’s quality of life and downtown lifestyle.”
The “surrounding property values” either go UP because people want to live down there, and this happens with or without the high-rise next door, or the area blights and turns into a land of surface parking lots. I know which one I want; perhaps neighbors should be more honest about the second.
The additional residents in this building provide more local customers for local business, which results in retail and entertainment venues being ADDED to the area, rather than subtracted.
Overall, opposing this project is irresponsible. We need a lot MORE of this kind of stuff, not less.
I was born and raised in this city. I love it. I also understand that people move here at an incredible rate. It never ceases to amaze me that the samne people that say no to development in the outlying areas also say no to it downtown.
Does this “head in the sand” approach really work?
Austin is growing. I’d like to see us grow into a city with a habitable downtown, where people could, much like much larger urban areas, actually survive without ever owning a car.
Dense vertical development is good for the overall health of our community, but some want to oppose it because it changes the view from their bedrooms.
Grow up – my city is.
M1EK addressed a couple of Andy’s points, but not all of them. Do you agree or disagree that we shouldn’t give one developer an pass on zoning? I’d think that given your advocacy for proper planning in transit that you’d want the same for construction. Shouldn’t we as a city decide where we’re going to allow high-rises and where we aren’t instead of allowing developers one by one to circumvent the current zoning?
TrueAustinite, I don’t think the post is anti-downtown development, it’s anti-developing it in this way.
I understand the need for more high-rise type living if we’re going to avoid sprawl, but this building will stick out like a sore thumb. If we want to change it for the entire area, fine, but let’s do that instead of making allowances for one developer and then another and then another. Shouldn’t we be having the debate about how far we want this type of development to spread? Do we want high rises south of the river? How far? Do we want high rises west of Lamar? Instead of being pushed into the change by business, shouldn’t we make the decision as a city?
The galleries will move to East Austin. I’m not concerned that they’ll no longer exist. That’s a nice segue to plug the East Austin Studio Tour this weekend.
“I’d think that given your advocacy for proper planning in transit that you’d want the same for construction. Shouldn’t we as a city decide where we’re going to allow high-rises and where we aren’t instead of allowing developers one by one to circumvent the current zoning?”
I think zoning anywhere near downtown is a disgrace. The only restrictions ought to be on curb cuts (fewer) and street-level retail (required). Height restrictions in particular anywhere east of Lamar are a joke. So no, I don’t put this in the boat of “planning”. Zoning in this case is being used as a club to keep the DRIVE from Old West Austin to downtown shorter, and protect their VIEWS. It has nothing to do with “planning” for the city in general.
And some businesses will move. Others will move in; since the net amount of street-level retail space is INCREASING with buildings like this (see one of my few mandates above).
It’s irresponsible bordering on evil for OWANA to oppose this. It’s easy to claim to be “anti-this-project” but this, to the rest of the city (and to many property-owners of Old West Austin as well, myself included) rings hollow given OWANA’s opposition to EVERY big building since Nokonah.
I can’t believe what I just read – restrictions on curb cuts? Ever heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or of Chapter 68, Elimination of Architectural Barriers, in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). What do curb cuts have to do zoning or redevelopment anyway? Perhaps you want to keep unsightly disabled people out of your ideal downtown? In that case the Spring could represent a big middle finger to handicapped people.
TTRENTHAM
Your points are well taken. Since development happens over the long term, I am skeptical that a cogent plan that will ultimately work can be crafted in advance. That being said, what better way to control zoning changes than to have developers apply for them on specific properties for specific purposes and then judge them on a case by case basis.
Perhaps the property next door would get the same variance. Perhaps the one down the block. But at some point, the city is going to say, “no, this is not what we want here.”
I’ve been saying for years that we need some viable residential property downtown. Places where you can walk to get groceries, have a drink, dinner, take the bus to work, etc. I think this fits the bill. Will it stick out. Yes. I think that is a price we may need to be willing to pay to truly move into the next phase of urbanization, which, is where we are headed unless we turn people away at the city limits.
“Cripple”
curb cuts in this case meant DRIVEWAYS, not sidewalk ramps.
Hooray for Austin! I own a home in Old West Austin (10 years) which I am selling so I can buy one of these condos. I choose to live in an urban area and this is the way I want to do it. No disrespect, but neighborhood groups’ causes are often quite selfish. The inner-city folks should know better than to have such a surburban NIMBY attitude. OWANA has spent more energy on demanding that dogs roam free in the park than on fixing sidewalks or addressing dangerous intersections, for example. Say good-bye to the Armadillo, ya’ll. Austin is fast approaching 1 million people, and it’s high time we started acting like it.
Pat,
I lived in OWANA in a condo on Waterston from 1997 through 2003(*) (I could not have even afforded to live there had it not been for condos) and like you was dismayed at the evolution of the neighborhood into what I like to call “Circle C on Lamar”. Here’s hoping this defeat will teach center-city neighborhoods to be responsible, but I doubt it.
(* – I still own it and rent it out. Ironically, had a project like the Spring been around when my son was baking in the oven, we might have moved there instead; the lack of medium-priced 3 bedroom condos in the area forced us into a house in NUNA rather than staying in the neighborhood – my wife and I both talk about how much we miss being able to walk to the Fresh Plus that doesn’t suck).
I think that this building is exactly what Austin needs. We are growing its time to grow downtown up with the rest of the city. This will help keep the density that we need in the central core not out in the suburbs or in the enviromentally sensitive areas. Im sick and tired of hearing people trying to make poor arguments to this overwhelmingly beneficial development. This building is not going to cause any difference in the view from town lake more than any other building in downtown wich by the way you can pretty much see from any part of townlake hike and bike trails.