[JAM]

Redevelopment of the district is slated to begin next year and will feature a plaza with green lawns, trees, a library, restaurants, offices and condominiums. But one aesthetic obstacle remains: the construction of a 12- to 25-foot-tall wall that will be constructed to secure and section off the Seaholm Electrical Substation, a separate operation run by Austin Energy that relays power to downtown Austin’s infrastructure.

.....

“The question is what kind of message is that wall going to send?” said Councilman Chris Riley. “Is it just going to be something that is kind of cold and industrial, or is it something that is actually going to reflect some values about the environment or about sustainability—things we typically associated with Austin Energy’s mission.”

....


City Council authorized a contract with Nader Tehrani of Massachusetts, who will design the wall that will cost about $720,000 for fabrication and construction. The majority of the project will be funded by Austin Energy with help from Art in Public Places.





http://impactnews.com/central-austin/news/9730-art-project-revitalizes-seaholm-district

[paulsjv]

Why was it that I always thought that they were going to move that substation?

[KevinFromTexas]

It looks ok, but it seems like a band aid. I really wish they could find a way to just move the substation somewhere else. I guess that would end up being much more expensive though. I'm just really wanting that area of downtown to feel like a neighborhood. It's getting there now, but still feels like there's a lot missing.

I don't think there was ever any real plan to move the substation. I think in the proposal that Trammel Crow showed for the substation and the Green water treatment plant, that there were solar panels in place of the substation.

Anyway, the article mentions a 26-story boutique hotel. That's taller than the original 22-story one that was first shown. I would love to see an art-deco influenced design for a tower there.

[electricron]

Any wall built in an urban Texas city will attract artists who are willing to share their work for free with graffiti. I hope somebody has set some money aside to erase or paint over the graffiti regularly.

[JAM]

Any wall built in an urban Texas city will attract artists who are willing to share their work for free with graffiti. I hope somebody has set some money aside to erase or paint over the graffiti regularly.

That's a really good point.

I don't get why this city funded project has all these vendors from other states working on it?

[KevinFromTexas]

Actually, graffiti isn't all that big of a problem in downtown. There are places where it's present, but not on a large scale. The type of places you do find it are in alleys or on dumpsters (alleys). It's pretty much unheard of to find it in other places. I would imagine too, that as that part of downtown comes to life, there simply won't be a time of day when someone could walk up and spray paint it without being caught/seen.

I just don't like the wall, because well, it's a wall. And also it's not really going to screen the view of the substation from afar, such as from across the river. It'll really only screen the view of it from street level. Residents high up in surrounding buildings will still see it, and it also seems like a bit of a waste of money. Why not just move the substation altogether and open up that block for redevelopment? Surely the cost of moving the substation will be offset by property taxes and sales taxes collected from whatever development replaces it. Not to mention the city owns the land, and will sell it off to developers.

[JAM]

The wall is located right off the trail, if this is considered park area, then it is closed at night, giving "graffitiers" their window of opportunity. They would be well hidden in the cloak of darkness between the wall and the trees that line Shoal Creek. It only takes a small amount of graffiti to ruin an expensive wall.

I would have like to see the substation moved too. My guess is that there is no good place to move it, only a trade-off would be available, so the cost is 100%, nothing really to mitigate the costs. It would probably need to be located at a similar distance from downtown.

I'm trying to think of where it could be placed without resistance from local community and haven't really thought of anything.

[TXAlex]

Bury it. They do it in Tokyo. May be cost prohibitive as land is "worth" 50-100x more there.

[Downtown_Austin]

Bury it. They do it in Tokyo. May be cost prohibitive as land is "worth" 50-100x more there.

http://impactnews.com/images/stories/CTA/2010/09/23-map.jpg

vegetation, like fig ivy, could cover the wall and reduce the "bleakness".

[JAM]

:previous: yeah - thats a good idea, sounds less expensive too. I guess it would need to be a native, non-invasive species...

[kingkirbythe....]

Use the wall for temporary art projects.

[migol24]

Use the wall for temporary art projects.or wall racquetball.... or handball :cool:

[kingkirbythe....]

If the wall is always changing, if there is gariffiti, it's less of a problem.

[paulsjv]

So what's that I see in pink? Street car/commuter rail? WTF?

[KevinFromTexas]

The commuter rail part makes sense since it could then cross the rail bridge into South Austin. But the street car line is confusing. It just starts there out of nowhere. Shouldn't it be entering that area from the east?

[SecretAgentMan]

The pink line is just the station platform, although the length is significantly exaggerated. The Seaholm Station will be the western terminus of the City of Austin Urban Rail and the Downtown Austin station for the Lone Star Commuter Rail operating between Georgetown and San Antonio.

[M1EK]

The pink line is just the station platform, although the length is significantly exaggerated. The Seaholm Station will be the western terminus of the City of Austin Urban Rail and the Downtown Austin station for the Lone Star Commuter Rail operating between Georgetown and San Antonio.

Neither one of which is going to happen in the next decade or three, unless radical change occurs - the LS commuter rail is stuck behind a couple of billion dollars to bribe UP to pick up and move; and the city's urban rail plan is in the process of being killed by the Red Line.

So ignore it - it's irrelevant. There will be no rail transit at Seaholm of consequence for another generation.

[SecretAgentMan]

Neither one of which is going to happen in the next decade or three, unless radical change occurs - the LS commuter rail is stuck behind a couple of billion dollars to bribe UP to pick up and move; and the city's urban rail plan is in the process of being killed by the Red Line.

So ignore it - it's irrelevant. There will be no rail transit at Seaholm of consequence for another generation.

I'll take that bet! If I remember correctly, Jeb will probably be owing you a steak dinner in about two years, but I think a generation is a safe bet. If there isn't at least one passenger rail line serving the Seaholm Station by 2030 (two decades and less than one generation), I'll by you a steak dinner too. If you take the bet, we'll both win - I'll get my steak, and you'll finally find out who I am when I come to collect my steak.

[bluedogok]

I just don't like the wall, because well, it's a wall. And also it's not really going to screen the view of the substation from afar, such as from across the river. It'll really only screen the view of it from street level. Residents high up in surrounding buildings will still see it, and it also seems like a bit of a waste of money. Why not just move the substation altogether and open up that block for redevelopment? Surely the cost of moving the substation will be offset by property taxes and sales taxes collected from whatever development replaces it. Not to mention the city owns the land, and will sell it off to developers.
The main substation for Downtown OKC is south of the Ford Center and is slated to be relocated in the Core To Shore proposal and there is upwards of $30 Million budgeted for its relocation. I would think relocating the Seaholm substation would be around that much as well, it would take a long time for the city to recover that cost.

As far as relocation, if it were to occur could they moved the substation to the former Holly Street Power Plant area?

[M1EK]

I'll take that bet! If I remember correctly, Jeb will probably be owing you a steak dinner in about two years, but I think a generation is a safe bet. If there isn't at least one passenger rail line serving the Seaholm Station by 2030 (two decades and less than one generation), I'll by you a steak dinner too. If you take the bet, we'll both win - I'll get my steak, and you'll finally find out who I am when I come to collect my steak.

"of consequence". City's urban rail plan would qualify; ASA would not.

[JAM]

As far as relocation, if it were to occur could they moved the substation to the former Holly Street Power Plant area?

My WAG is the old Holly St site would be too far. Plus, Holly is a beautiful site, I hope they just remove all evidence of that plant, sans the canal that feeds the cooling water - that is great for fishing and relaxing.

It is inefficient to move low voltage long distances. I don't know what those distances are for substations, but Holly seems too far.