HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 16, 2014, 2:50 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,850
Ya'll just get old school and grab a statesman today. Full article in there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 17, 2014, 2:38 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,864
Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:09 PM
Spaceman Spaceman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/
This is a major screw up.....Something smells...A child could have designed this project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:31 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hill Country View Post
Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/
From that article:

Quote:
A Capitol View Corridor snag is not expected to delay next year’s opening of the Waller Creek Tunnel project.
Fast-forward one month.

Report: Fixing Waller Creek Tunnel design flaw could cost millions
Austin American Statesman
June 18, 2014


Quote:
A major design flaw in the city of Austin’s $149 million Waller Creek Tunnel project could cost between $15 million and $45 million to fix and delay part of the project by one to four years.

That is the conclusion of an eight-page report done in April, shortly after city officials realized that a tall intake building for the flood-control tunnel would violate state law by obstructing views of the Capitol. As designed, the intake would be 32 feet tall on its highest, eastern side — about 16 feet too tall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 5:43 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
It's not fast forward, it's reverse. The city report was in April, and then in May they said there would be no delays.

So either they were lying in May, or (more likely) the report was obsolete and it's crappy news reporting looking for click-bait reporting on a 2 month old document that isn't anything new.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:35 PM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,178
Is the view corridor of the Capitol that big of a fucking deal? Is it worth spending another $15 to $45 million just to protect the "beloved view" of the Capitol?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:50 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
eastbound and down
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,573
As the article states, that view is already blocked by a state office building that was built in 1959 before 1983 when the capitol view corridors were established. I think the logic is that if the old state office building were ever demolished that whatever replaced it would undoubtedly have to obey the cvc rules.

By the way, I remember Hill Country mentioning that he read somewhere that it was the One American Center that encouraged the implementation of the view corridors. That makes sense if they were put into place in 1983. That's right about the time the One American Center would have been at least halfway topped out.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 6:55 PM
alwaysmiling alwaysmiling is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
Is the view corridor of the Capitol that big of a fucking deal? Is it worth spending another $15 to $45 million just to protect the "beloved view" of the Capitol?
No it's not. Not in this case. The powers at be should recognize this and the taxpayers of Austin should not be on the hook. The city and state need to come to an agreement that is conservative with our tax dollars. Do I have faith in this type of common sense answer to this mostly insignificant problem being exuded by our government bodies? Absolutely not... Incompetence I tell you, and an absolute waste. Where is the accountability?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 7:46 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is online now
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,673
I love our view corridors, or at least the idea behind them. I think it adds character to our town. With that said, I do not support millions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent on this mistake just to adhere to the CVC.

I'll be pissed if they don't lift the restrictions in this case. They need to do a better job of checking this stuff before it's under construction. This is twice in the last year (Gables & the Lamar CVC). They need to do their job. Don't screw up and stick us with the bill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 8:11 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
eastbound and down
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,573
I generally like the view corridors also, but I think there's a problem with them. I don't think they're being properly enforced. I think, too, having both the city and the state involved is causing some confusion and chaos. Too many of them have been neglected through the years and not maintained. Some of them have trees and powerlines blocking them, and there are some older buildings that predate them that block them. I doubt very much that any trees of a mature size/age are going to be trimmed to protect the views. Of course older buildings that are not historically/architecturally significant could eventually be torn down, but even that's not likely since the two biggest reasons buildings are demolished is either structural deficiency or because something bigger is planned there. And of course in this case nothing larger could be built, so that only leaves structural deficiency. Most of the time governmental bodies will use a building until it is absolutely falling apart. Even after an office is moved out of one smaller building to another larger one, the smaller one is usually given to some other department.

Anyway, I sort of get the drift that they aren't being actively maintained and enforced. I think it's also a situation of a lack of organization on the city and state's part of making sure that every property within the corridor has its owner notified that their property lies within one, how to maintain the view and notifying developers and other city departments of them anytime any work is to be done on the property.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 8:16 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 429
I agree, I like the CVCs to an extent but since view corridors are kind of... Rare, especially for a city this size, I feel like it's kind of one of those things that gets overlooked.

Personally I feel there are far too many CVCs. 30 seems excessive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 8:29 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
eastbound and down
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,573
I'd rather let the view from the park go away and instead build some kind of observation deck or even another observation hill like what's in Butler Park to enjoy the view. I'm worried that Waterloo Park won't be the major attraction that it should be. It needs something central to draw people to it. So far our urban parks are pretty lackluster. Butler Park is an improvement of course.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 9:51 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I'd rather let the view from the park go away and instead build some kind of observation deck ... to enjoy the view.
An artist's rendering in the Statesman article shows a deck for people on top of the current design for the intake. It also shows waterfalls coming out of the intake into the creek.

Looks pretty nice to me as designed and you get a new view from the top of the intake. Why not just modify the CVC and save the bucks?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 10:31 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,850
Write your legislator and the city. Now. This is a trade off where more people will be served by seeing the Capitol on top of the observation deck!
This only makes sense in this case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 10:42 PM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TXpatriate
Posts: 2,015
What's most irritating for me about this issue (or non-issue really), is that I believe this particular view corridor is reserved for... Interstate 35...you know, the one that may be underground soon? This is one of the view corridors that should be of least priority, certainly one that shouldn't cause us to spend millions of dollars and years of time to subtract 16 feet from a structure.

I guess every city in America has some stupid aspects of its bureaucracy, but if Austin wants to appear progressive, this should not be of major concern. The view corridors are great in some respects, but in this era of explosive development, there has to be more flexibility.
__________________
"Also, to be frank, I like dense cities best and care about them most." from The Death And Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 10:49 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,864
This should definitely be a CVC exemption considering the location and possible hurt to tax payers. Absolutely nobody hangs out in that corner of a sorry city park to view the capitol.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 11:09 PM
corvairkeith's Avatar
corvairkeith corvairkeith is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 873
Wasn't there talk a few years back about a possible high rise going right on the other side of Red River on the Brick Oven lot? Seems strange that lot isn't in the CVC but the park is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 11:17 PM
MightyYoda MightyYoda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 445
Love the idea of adding an observation deck. People get to see the Capital and much cheaper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2014, 11:35 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,864
KXAN reported at 6:00 PM that another building (built before the CVC law) partially blocks that view already. So the blockage from the intake facility isn't even as bad as the 16 feet overage implies.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2014, 4:32 AM
hookem hookem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
As the article states, that view is already blocked by a state office building that was built in 1959 before 1983 when the capitol view corridors were established. I think the logic is that if the old state office building were ever demolished that whatever replaced it would undoubtedly have to obey the cvc rules.
If that is the case, then why not just add an agreement that whenever the existing building blocking the view is torn down, the intake facility will have to be reconstructed to be 16' shorter and thus ensure effective compliance. It might be 20 years down the road or later, for all we know. By then some improvements in the intake structure might be desired anyway, and the new development along Waller Creek might have already added a lot of money to the tax rolls. It could even be part of their special tax/assessment, that they may need to collect to pay for the reconstruction at some future time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:48 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.