So there’s been a bit of talk lately about the Grayco Development along Lakeshore. Save Town Lake is against it because they believe that the 40’ height limit should be absolute. Chris Reilly (one of our new council members) has weighed in on why he supports it. His argument is that they are only asking for a height variance and they are offering a massive number of incentives to the city in return (public plazas, preserving trees, park improvements, sidewalks, etc).

I’ve become somewhat pessimistic about development in Austin. It seems that these initial offers are generally their best offer, and they tend to get to build what they want in the end. The Northcross debacle is just one of many where we were going to get something pretty nice from the developers, but in the end the city is quite a bit poorer and we’re getting a generic Walmart. As far as initial offers go, this is a great one, and is completely in keeping with the ideals of the new East Riverside plan. But while the pro/anti development track is a pretty common argument, I don’t really want to address it in this case.

I also don’t want to address it in the sense of ugly vs. nice developments. One of the things that being on a Neighborhood Association Board convinced me of is that you cannot create rules to avoid ugly. You can create rules for well-kept. You can create rules to effectively use space, but you can’t avoid ugly.

That said, I wanted to compare the two properties that are side by side. The Grayco Development and the Amli development next door. You can view a map at the Chronicle’s writeup on the issue. I want to compare them simply from a lakefront utilization perspective.

Here’s a view of the where the Grayco development will be from across the lake. It will be behind the second tree line (per the variance agreement those trees stay). There’s an existing two story apartment complex there. You’ll need to expand the picture and look very closely to see it.

Here’s a view of the area from the actual hike and bike trail. It’s taken from right next to the water fountain which is halfway between Lakeshore Boulevard and the closest the Hike and Bike trail gets to the water.

Next look at the Amli complex. This is a project that did not request a variance and is within waterfront overlay height limits:

That large concrete building is a parking garage. Don’t get me wrong. I actually like the Amili development. Looking at the way it integrates with Riverside you can imagine how Riverside is going to become a nice strollable boulevard of shops and apartments, rather than a bunch of run down strip malls:

But is “Save Town Lake” right to contend that the Grayco development is some sort of monstrosity that will destroy the spirit of the lake? That development is going to be behind the treeline. It’s going to have a lot of units, which means more people who can enjoy the lake, and it’s going to preserve the Hike and Bike trail (something the Amli development is not extending, you still get to run by it on the sidewalk). There will be a plaza to engage the public and bike routes and sidewalks through the development to make getting from Riverside to the Trail easier.

Is a parking garage really the best utilization of a waterfront view? Shouldn’t people be enjoying the view instead of a concrete wall? Shouldn’t we encourage developers to seek variances when following the rules would lead to something that is obviously not the best utilization of a site?

I think we need to take variances to get what we really want. Keep the views for the people. Keep density in the East Riverside area and bring in new commercial development to a historically under-served community.

---

Comments

Alex

2009-10-05T00:55:32.000Z

Amen!

Mark Cathcart (http://austin.metblogs.com/author/triman/)

2009-10-06T04:33:42.000Z

I think the point is that a lot of Austinites over a number of years put in real effort and time to get our current and former political overlords to agree to a set of standards which allow the developers to make money from the water front overlay properties, but not to allow them to exploit it to the point where the waterfront becomes the domain of the developers exclusively through back office deals with broken promises about what they’d do in exchange for the ability to add “just a few more floors”. The question isn’t as you say if its a good looking building or not, you are right in suggesting you can’t legislate for that, either way. However PUDs give the developers a way to circumvent the agreed process and the will come back again and again if they are not held to a higher standard. In this case that higher standard is the waterfront overlay, which the City not so long ago agreed to uphold. Conveniently many of the current city seem to have forgotten what they agreed just a short time ago. The net of the issue hear is will the developer walk from the Grayco project if they don’t get those few “extra feet”? I think not. I also don’t think that what they are offering in return in worth the precedent of allowing them via the PUD process to effectively dilute the waterfront overaly. No one is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to make money, there is as you’ve identified plenty of opportunity to do that, going up shouldn’t be one though.

Tim

2009-10-06T09:09:32.000Z

I respect the desire for some sort of standard, but I don’t think this one is particularly good. I think setback is a much more interesting metric for waterfront development than height. I just don’t get the height restriction. Is the Shoreline really less visible from the trail than the 360? I just feel like this is a way to keep density out of central Austin. I can’t see a purpose to it otherwise. Until you fight to get those ugly old complexes off the route of the trail, then I really don’t want to hear it. You’re fighting the wrong fight. This just smacks of anti-density, not “protect the lake” And I just don’t agree that they’ll build it anyway if they don’t get the height variance. Sure they’ll build… something. But not the great shiny beautiful project they present the first time. Time and time again we’ve fought a battle. The developer’s won, and we’ve ended up with what I can only politely call “ugly urban sprawl”. I don’t see any value in continuing these fights. If we’re going to get AMD, and Circle C, and Westlake regardless of what we do, then I want them to pay. I want beautiful open air plazas, and public park lands maintained by private funds. I want ground floor shopping and the number of fences kept to a minimum. I want sidewalks and bike routes. “will the developer walk from the Grayco project if they don’t get those few “extra feet”?” Certainly the might. And they almost certainly won’t build the plaza, or the bike routes connecting riverside and lakeshore. I want a nice city. Not a city of interchangeable small apartment buildings that don’t offend anyone.