Katie Urbaszewski
Westlake Picayune, March 20, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Marshall Tract Status
Announcement
Cousins Properties Inc. will not develop the Marshall Tract. Dan Marshall is working with L. M. Holder III architects on a new proposal for the Marshall Tract. L.M. Holder III commits his practice to creating architecture compatible with the climate and the environment and to share this knowledge of energy efficient systems and renewable energy with others to build a sustainable environment. More information will be made available in the future. More about L.M. Holder III is available on his web site: http://www.holder3.com/L.M. Holder III Bio
“L.M. Holder III commits his practice to creating architecture compatible with the climate and the environment and to share this knowledge of energy efficient systems and renewable energy with others to build a sustainable environment. There are finite conventional resources and an infinite need for these resources. For us to sustain our society, we must integrate renewable energy and sustainable materials into architecture. Our choice is not if we change, but how much will be left when our priorities change. The earlier the change is made, the longer our standard of life can be maintained. Holder researches historic examples, designs new buildings, shares information with others, and gives lectures and seminars for professionals, and non-professionals alike. His leadership promotes alternative performance energy standards to allow design freedom and promote innovation when prescriptive standards were proposed. He gives many lectures and seminars and writes workbooks and guidelines to promote energy responsible architecture and his architectural projects receive national recognition as do his lectures and seminars. Holder is a leader in researching methods of making the transition and sharing information with others, creating buildings which are benchmarks for energy efficient design; even creating buildings and structures which generate more energy than they use. He provides energy, daylighting, and computer simulated lighting and consulting services for professional, institutional, public, and private clients. Throughout his career he endeavors to be part of the ultimate solution to create a quality environment which can be sustained.” http://www.holder3.com/About.htmTuesday, February 3, 2015
Houses vs. Office Buildings
At an Eanes ISD community bond forum, I got the chance to ask a question about what type of development would be most beneficial to the school district - single family house or office development. The answer was counter intuitive because I would have thought that the office development with more capital value would be preferred from the perspective of school financing. That turned out not to be true for three reasons. First EISD is not at capacity for students so additional students don't require new facilities, within limits of course. Secondly, the benefits financially have to be viewed as a delta to the existing conditions. And, third, EISD has an expense shortfall of between 4M and 5M dollars annually. The state recaptures 54% of our local tax dollars now and that will increase to 63% in five years. And, apparently it's even worse when it's looked at from the perspective of a delta. If I remember correctly, 90% of the delta due to capital improvements of property would go to the state. Therefore, whether the land is developed for house or office buildings is not important to EISD with respect to tax revenue. However, the additional capital value of the offices would give the district more ability for bond issues. On the other hand, single family homes would presumably bring more students into the district thereby increasing the amount of money given by the state per student. This would help alleviate EISD's operating expense short fall.
If you'd like a copy of the presentation given at the forum on January 14, 2015, click here.
If you'd like a copy of the presentation given at the forum on January 14, 2015, click here.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Another Perspective on How the Buildings Might Look
As I have stated earlier, photographic or graphic perspectives on how a building might look on hilly terrain to the neighborhood are tricky. Cameras and drawings can't match the eye exactly. Those of us who have attempted such things that have been reported in this blog are careful attempts, hopefully, not biased attempts to help residents "see" what might become. Here's another attempt.
I took the following two pictures with the same camera at the same focal length, each about 2,200 feet from the building or proposed building site - one of Cielo Center and the other of the Marshall Tract. Cielo Center is a six story building with 270,00 square feet of space. I don't know what Cousins will finally propose but the earlier proposal was two buildings - 5 and 7 story. The final image is a map showing the approximate camera location and view.
I'll leave up to the reader to visualize for their selves what the buildings might look like.
.JPG)
I took the following two pictures with the same camera at the same focal length, each about 2,200 feet from the building or proposed building site - one of Cielo Center and the other of the Marshall Tract. Cielo Center is a six story building with 270,00 square feet of space. I don't know what Cousins will finally propose but the earlier proposal was two buildings - 5 and 7 story. The final image is a map showing the approximate camera location and view.
I'll leave up to the reader to visualize for their selves what the buildings might look like.
Cousins' perspectives on how the two buildings would look from various perspectives are now available on the Lost Creek Neighborhood Association's web site. Click here to view the slide presentation. Below is one perspective from further west on Lost Creek Blvd. The picture was created with a different camera with a different focal length from a different perspective.
The drawing bellow compares the perspectives of the two sets of images. In the two pictures I took, I was about 2200 feet from the building and the field of view was about 40 degrees. The Cousins perspective is about 1200 feet from the largest building, and a 65 degree field of view.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Capital of Texas Hwy. office space snagged
According to this article in the Community Impact Newspaper (Lake Travis/Westlake Edition), v 5 issue 11, written by Leslee Bassman, land for first class office space along 360 is almost used up, and thet development is moving west to Bee Cave and 620.
The Marshall tract development is briefly mentioned:
"The last parcel along Capital of Texas Hwy. destined for commercial development—known as the Marshall Tract—lies within Lost Creek. Community residents are concerned about the effect of an office project on the surrounding residential neighborhood, Lost Creek Neighborhood Association president Jennifer Lamm said.
Cousins Properties purchased the Marshall Tract—a 37.25-acre parcel located at 1300 Lost Creek Blvd., Austin—to develop into an office complex, parking garage and possibly a fire station or senior living center, Senior Vice President Tim Hendricks said. The project is not in the permit stage yet, but a development assessment report was presented to Austin City Council on Nov. 20.
The height of the two proposed buildings will be about 100 feet for one and 74 feet for the other, Hendricks said.
“The proposed [project] would significantly impact the longstanding character of our neighborhood,” Lamm said."
Several comments. Is the land "destined for commercial development"? There are more reasons why the land should not be commercially developed then there are supporting it's commercial development.
Has the land been purchased? My understanding was that the contract was pending a rezoning of the land from SF-2 to a PUD.
And, lastly, in my opinion, we should be stating our opposition to the project more affirmatively. We do not want that land developed commercially!
Read article here.
The Marshall tract development is briefly mentioned:
"The last parcel along Capital of Texas Hwy. destined for commercial development—known as the Marshall Tract—lies within Lost Creek. Community residents are concerned about the effect of an office project on the surrounding residential neighborhood, Lost Creek Neighborhood Association president Jennifer Lamm said.
Cousins Properties purchased the Marshall Tract—a 37.25-acre parcel located at 1300 Lost Creek Blvd., Austin—to develop into an office complex, parking garage and possibly a fire station or senior living center, Senior Vice President Tim Hendricks said. The project is not in the permit stage yet, but a development assessment report was presented to Austin City Council on Nov. 20.
The height of the two proposed buildings will be about 100 feet for one and 74 feet for the other, Hendricks said.
“The proposed [project] would significantly impact the longstanding character of our neighborhood,” Lamm said."
Several comments. Is the land "destined for commercial development"? There are more reasons why the land should not be commercially developed then there are supporting it's commercial development.
Has the land been purchased? My understanding was that the contract was pending a rezoning of the land from SF-2 to a PUD.
And, lastly, in my opinion, we should be stating our opposition to the project more affirmatively. We do not want that land developed commercially!
Read article here.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Marshal Tract PUD: Briefing before Austin City Council
A briefing was held on the proposed PUD for the Marshall Tract before the Austin Mayor and City Council on November 20, 2014. This is the beginning of the zoning change process for the tract. The video is embedded below:
Marshall Tract PUD from Paul Schumann on Vimeo.
In copying and embedding the video in this blog, some resolution was lost. You can also find the video as item 174 here.
The presentation was scheduled for 2 pm, and I understand it finally happened at 10:30 pm. Thanks to all the intrepid Lost Creek residents who saw it through, but especially to Jenn Lamb, LCNA President, who did a great job representing our interests.
Just remember, this was the first engagement in a protracted battle. We have to stay involved and committed to the protection of our interests to get this bad idea defeated.
Marshall Tract PUD from Paul Schumann on Vimeo.
In copying and embedding the video in this blog, some resolution was lost. You can also find the video as item 174 here.
The presentation was scheduled for 2 pm, and I understand it finally happened at 10:30 pm. Thanks to all the intrepid Lost Creek residents who saw it through, but especially to Jenn Lamb, LCNA President, who did a great job representing our interests.
Just remember, this was the first engagement in a protracted battle. We have to stay involved and committed to the protection of our interests to get this bad idea defeated.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Loop 360 Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Loop 360 (Capital of Texas Highways) is designated a Hill Country Roadway (1) by the City of Austin. The City annexed the roadway and land on either side of it and protected it's character though land use zoning for new construction withing 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the road. The City also planned retail development only at the major intersections of the road. The rest of the land along the road was zoned for office, residential or civic use.
At the time of the creation of the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, there was a lot of opposition from developers and land owners. This was described by E. Charles Palmer:
“Growth-control measures inevitably cause economic hardships in some areas. The Hill Country Road Ordinance, for example, has had considerable economic impact on the investors who purchased the land at inflated prices based on highest possible building density and height. The banks that lent money for purchase of the land are also hurt, as are the architects, contractors and others affected by loss of jobs. The developers accuse city government of being inconsistent and unprogressive, while city government consoles the developers on their poor business decisions. Despite efforts at compromise and talk of working toward common goals, the lines between proponents of rapid growth and the advocates of slower, more controlled growth seem to be more clearly drawn in Austin than in San Antonio. (2)”
620 was also classified as a Hill Country Roadway. However, incremental development, traffic congestion and widespread retail zoning has greatly degraded the road's scenic value.
Developers and land owners have continued to put pressure on the development of land along the Loop 360 corridor and left unchecked will gradually, incrementally destroy its character.
Loop 360 is already classified as a congested roadway by the Mobility Investment Priorities Project (3). “The rapid growth of Austin over the last several decades has exacerbated traffic congestion on Loop 360, as the city has nearly doubled in size every twenty years. Geography and environmental constraints contribute to limiting the right of way, complicating expansion plans, because this particular segment of 360 crosses over the Barton Creek Greenbelt, an environmentally sensitive area.” Continued development of office space in the area will increase traffic congestion all over the city as people have to commute to the area. Rapid transit systems have to play a role in solving Austin traffic congestion problems and it it is not likely that a rapid transportation system would reach this area of office development.
Attempts to modify Loop 360 by TxDOT have met a considerable amount of resistance (4, 5, 6). Yet continued development coupled with the facts that there is no alternative north-south route in west Austin, and the lack of mass transit, is going to increase congestion in the corridor.
Two recent developments in Austin's land planning efforts – Imagine Austin (7) and CodeNEXT (8) – have possibly opened the 360 corridor up for expansion discussion once again.
The concept of a neighborhood being developed in Austin's CodeNEXT project could positively or negatively influence the development along 360. If the developers and land owners manage to get this corridor classified as a neighborhood, then they could possibly control its development based on an incremental approach of “more of the same”. With the establishment and recognition of a 360 CONA, we might be able to use the concept of the 360 corridor as a neighborhood to keep it a scenic roadway.
The 360 CONA would be modeled after the 2222 CONA (9) created by Peter and Carol Torgrimson
“The purpose of the 2222 Coalition of Neighborhoods Associations (2222 CONA) is to provide a forum for influencing development of the 2222 Hill Country Corridor in a manner that benefits the people who live, work, and enjoy recreation in the 2222 Corridor
Our focus is to encourage development that minimizes traffic safety problems, minimizes negative impact on the environment, preserves the natural resources, and blends aesthetically with the natural beauty of the Hill Country.”
I think it is imperative to the future of the Loop 360 corridor that this 360 CONA be developed. Together we can exert more power than we can individually. I have estimated almost 9,000 households would be contained within this corridor. If we don't have a way to look at the Loop 360 corridor as a system, understand its past and protect its future, we will see a degradation in the scenic road way and a decrease in the quality of life for us, and a possible degradation of the economic value of our homes. As the old saying goes, we re in danger of “being nibbled to death by ducks.”
If you are interested in representing your neighborhood in discussions about the formation of a 360 CONA, please contact me.
1. Hill Country Roadway Ordinance (1985)
2. E. Charles Palmer, The Balcones Escarpment, https://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/balcones_escarpment/pages153-162.html
3. Texas A&M Transportation Institute
4. Texas State Highway Loop 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_Loop_360
5. Loop 360 Issues: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Loop-360-Issues/322112161136138
6. Austin Comp Planning: A Brief History: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-02-05/953471/
7. https://austintexas.gov/imagineaustin
8. http://www.austintexas.gov/codenext
9. http://www.2222cona.org/
At the time of the creation of the Hill Country Roadway Ordinance, there was a lot of opposition from developers and land owners. This was described by E. Charles Palmer:
“Growth-control measures inevitably cause economic hardships in some areas. The Hill Country Road Ordinance, for example, has had considerable economic impact on the investors who purchased the land at inflated prices based on highest possible building density and height. The banks that lent money for purchase of the land are also hurt, as are the architects, contractors and others affected by loss of jobs. The developers accuse city government of being inconsistent and unprogressive, while city government consoles the developers on their poor business decisions. Despite efforts at compromise and talk of working toward common goals, the lines between proponents of rapid growth and the advocates of slower, more controlled growth seem to be more clearly drawn in Austin than in San Antonio. (2)”
620 was also classified as a Hill Country Roadway. However, incremental development, traffic congestion and widespread retail zoning has greatly degraded the road's scenic value.
Developers and land owners have continued to put pressure on the development of land along the Loop 360 corridor and left unchecked will gradually, incrementally destroy its character.
Loop 360 is already classified as a congested roadway by the Mobility Investment Priorities Project (3). “The rapid growth of Austin over the last several decades has exacerbated traffic congestion on Loop 360, as the city has nearly doubled in size every twenty years. Geography and environmental constraints contribute to limiting the right of way, complicating expansion plans, because this particular segment of 360 crosses over the Barton Creek Greenbelt, an environmentally sensitive area.” Continued development of office space in the area will increase traffic congestion all over the city as people have to commute to the area. Rapid transit systems have to play a role in solving Austin traffic congestion problems and it it is not likely that a rapid transportation system would reach this area of office development.
Attempts to modify Loop 360 by TxDOT have met a considerable amount of resistance (4, 5, 6). Yet continued development coupled with the facts that there is no alternative north-south route in west Austin, and the lack of mass transit, is going to increase congestion in the corridor.
Two recent developments in Austin's land planning efforts – Imagine Austin (7) and CodeNEXT (8) – have possibly opened the 360 corridor up for expansion discussion once again.
The concept of a neighborhood being developed in Austin's CodeNEXT project could positively or negatively influence the development along 360. If the developers and land owners manage to get this corridor classified as a neighborhood, then they could possibly control its development based on an incremental approach of “more of the same”. With the establishment and recognition of a 360 CONA, we might be able to use the concept of the 360 corridor as a neighborhood to keep it a scenic roadway.
The 360 CONA would be modeled after the 2222 CONA (9) created by Peter and Carol Torgrimson
“The purpose of the 2222 Coalition of Neighborhoods Associations (2222 CONA) is to provide a forum for influencing development of the 2222 Hill Country Corridor in a manner that benefits the people who live, work, and enjoy recreation in the 2222 Corridor
Our focus is to encourage development that minimizes traffic safety problems, minimizes negative impact on the environment, preserves the natural resources, and blends aesthetically with the natural beauty of the Hill Country.”
I think it is imperative to the future of the Loop 360 corridor that this 360 CONA be developed. Together we can exert more power than we can individually. I have estimated almost 9,000 households would be contained within this corridor. If we don't have a way to look at the Loop 360 corridor as a system, understand its past and protect its future, we will see a degradation in the scenic road way and a decrease in the quality of life for us, and a possible degradation of the economic value of our homes. As the old saying goes, we re in danger of “being nibbled to death by ducks.”
If you are interested in representing your neighborhood in discussions about the formation of a 360 CONA, please contact me.
1. Hill Country Roadway Ordinance (1985)
2. E. Charles Palmer, The Balcones Escarpment, https://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/balcones_escarpment/pages153-162.html
3. Texas A&M Transportation Institute
4. Texas State Highway Loop 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_Loop_360
5. Loop 360 Issues: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Loop-360-Issues/322112161136138
6. Austin Comp Planning: A Brief History: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-02-05/953471/
7. https://austintexas.gov/imagineaustin
8. http://www.austintexas.gov/codenext
9. http://www.2222cona.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)