The Chronicle has a piece about the towers proposed for the south side of Town Lake (300 E. Riverside).
The opening sentence:
How committed should the city of Austin be to protecting the Town Lake waterfront as open space for all citizens to enjoy?
("Very," of course.) You'd think that in a piece about preserving the public's use of the waterfront, the Chronicle would note that the public can't use this stretch of waterfront. The current occupants --two low-rise apartment complexes -- crowd right up to Town Lake's banks. I won't rehash my post on this topic, except to point out that in order for the public to enjoy this stretch of waterfront, someone's got to have an incentive to tear these old apartments down.
The existing apartments' encroachment is irrelevant if you figure the developer will build no matter what. I don't have a clue whether it will. But here's the TCAD plat (click to enlarge and for scale):
A and B are the lots at issue. I'm not sure how much usable lot will be left if the developer must comply with 200-foot setbacks. Or even 150-foot setbacks.
As far as I know, the developer hasn't threatened to walk away from the project if it doesn't get its variance. That may because it intends to develop no matter what. Or it may be because the developer figures its opponents don't want any redevelopment at all; to them, a promise to walk away is not a threat, it's a victory.
I don't know whether this project is a good one or not. I do think that in any debate over this development, we should consider how the "public" will benefit if nothing happens with this property.
