Does "Save Town Lake" really want to save Town Lake?

A group calling itself "Save Town Lake" has formed to fight CWS Properties' proposed high-rise development on Town Lake near S. Congress and E. Riverside.  Their website is here. 

Their pitch (as their name implies) is that we must act to save Town Lake and the Hike and Bike Trail: 

What makes it special?  There is room to breathe and lots of nature to experience right in the heart of the city.  Runners, walkers, strollers, bicyclists, meditators, picknickers, dogs and their owners all have a sense of freedom from urban chaos.  This openness is created because the current buildings are set appropriately back from the shore.

(Italics mine).

They're entitled to their opinion, but they shouldn't misrepresent the facts.  As I've pointed out, the apartment complexes there now jut to within 20 feet of Town Lake. A parking lot sits just 3 or 4 feet from the banks.  There is no Hike and Bike Trail on this stretch of Town Lake because there is no room for it.   That doesn't seem idyllic to me.

The developer is essentially proposing to create an extra 60 feet of buffer.  The neighborhood groups want an extra 180 feet, which would leave most of the property undevelopable.  We can debate whether it's better to have high rises and public access or low rises and no public access.  (We can even debate whether there'll be a developer willing to give us 200-foot setbacks.)  Just don't claim you're protecting public access to Town Lake when your opposition may foreclose public access to Town Lake.

P.S.  The cynical should check out their list of "Town Lake" developments, evidently meant to alarm us about overdevelopment.  Spring, 360 and the Monarch all made the list.

Comments

[Jim]

That condo project doesn't belong in that area. Too tall. It'll drop property value for all those travis height homes that won't have a view of downtown anymore. It'll mess with views for people in Milago, The Shore and Towers of Town lake.

Besides, if it's ok to build an ugly highrise there, why not S. Congress? Why not S. Lamar. That development will set a bad precendent...which I think is what all the whining is really about.

[AC]

The property is zoned for 200 feet. S. Congress and S. Lamar are not.

You're probably right, though, that a lot of the opposition comes from people who object to the heigt. There are no heigth limitations to work with, so people have seized on the setback limitations. Just speculation.

[tom]

The access does not exist today and the requirement for any redevelopment requires a 200 foot setback to comply with the WOL. This developer bought this property knowing the laws it would be subject to.So we should feel sorry for them? This is the largest project Austin has seen yet with almost 1,000,000 square feet and somewhere between 850 and 1000 condos.It is about 3 times the size of the Hyatt, the project that caused the WOL ordinance in the first place.The project is not only bad for Austin it is horrible from every angle. The trail extention they propose will only enhance the value of the project and it is being presented instead of parkland dedication fees that have been seriously understated. Any responsible developer and his banker would want the trail. Please

[tom]

A couple of additional thoughts on this: Height is a problem that close to the lake, this is not the central business district,it is the south shore. South Congress is just around the corner and building are caped at 5 stories not 20. However it is really a quality of life issue moving as many as 3,000 people and ther autos onto Riverside Drive with ONE, only the first, huge project. This is not only a single, monsterous project encroachng into a neighborhood it is the start of a movement of the entire central business district into a neighborhood with the same problems that density brings. STL believes and has not resisted one project because of height and or density in the central downtown north shore that has complied with the Water Front Overlay. In fact some of the directors and supporters would not care if the city permited 100 story buildings in the core central business district assuming the infrastructure was there to support it. Go to SaveTownLake.org where you will find that the Austin Neighborhood Council, representing 60 associations have given the organization their full support and money.You will also find the Mission Statemant and the WOL Ordinance. Do your home work before you start taking shots in the dark at something that I completely believe the vast majority of Austin supports and understands. Then go to City Council and express yourself on the 27th

[AC]

Tom, you have confirmed what I suspected, which is that the real opposition is to the density, height and number of units. The property's already zoned for that height and density. You're just using the WOL to get a zoning change.

Here's a good litmus test (and the one I posed in my post): Let's say you have a choice between this project at the proposed density and proposed setback, and no redevelopment at all -- which would mean no hike and bike trail through this property (because there's no room for it). Which would you choose? It sounds like you'd sacrifice an extension of the hike and bike trail to get rid of this project. How does that "Save Town Lake"?

The fact that reflexively anti-density ANC opposes this project is hardly a surprise, and does not necessarily say anything about the general sentiment in Austin. (See its recent opposition to the 700 Rio Grande project despite support from the adjoining neighborhoods.)

I don't know whether this is a good project, although I wouldn't oppose it for its height or density. But the fact that the current apartment complex completely obstructs public access to Town Lake ought to be part of the debate. You guys never even mention it.