Waller Creek Flood Tunnel Update Thread - Page 7

Jdawgboy · #**121** Posted **May 13, 2014, 10:58 AM**

So any specific detailed updates? Been pretty quiet regarding this project.

The ATX · #**122** Posted **May 15, 2014, 12:04 PM**

Oh, oh. The tunnel's intake facility violates a CVC which is why the city wants to spend 1.8 million on legal fees for a purpose they won't disclose. The story is behind the Statesman's pay wall so I didn't bother with the link.

Here's the culprit in Waterloo Park:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...othly-o/nW2Y5/

sammyk · #**123** Posted **May 15, 2014, 1:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Oh, oh. The tunnel's intake facility violates a CVC which is why the city wants to spend 1.8 million on legal fees for a purpose they won't disclose. The story is behind the Statesman's pay wall so I didn't bother with the link.

Here's the culprit in Waterloo Park:

Can you link it anyway? I have access and would like to read it. Thanks!

The ATX · #**124** Posted **May 15, 2014, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyk

Can you link it anyway? I have access and would like to read it. Thanks!

I get the digital pdf version, so I can't be sure the same info is in the web article. The CVC info came from a city employee who didn't want to be named:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...s-18-mi/nfw9k/

Novacek · #**125** Posted **May 15, 2014, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Oh, oh. The tunnel's intake facility violates a CVC which is why the city wants to spend 1.8 million on legal fees for a purpose they won't disclose. The story is behind the Statesman's pay wall so I didn't bother with the link.

Here's the culprit in Waterloo Park:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...othly-o/nW2Y5/

How can a basically one-story structure violate a view corridor?

The ATX · #**126** Posted **May 15, 2014, 1:59 PM**

The article didn't say, but I'm guessing there is not supposed to be any blockage of the view from the park. So, a homeless person for example, sitting in that one tiny corner of the park may not be able to see the capitol.

bearinaustin · #**127** Posted **May 15, 2014, 2:04 PM**

Kinda sad that this has happened twice now in two recent projects. Doesn't anyone do any double checking?? It's going to cost taxpayers an extra 2 mil at the least now. Very annoying.

GoldenBoot · #**128** Posted **May 15, 2014, 5:18 PM**

No only was the intake facility in violation, the giant "poppy" structure also violated a CVC. The "poppy" has been completely redesigned (it is blah and no longer resembles a "poppy") and moved to a different corner of the park.

The City knew about these violations last year...it's just now being made public.

Jdawgboy · #**129** Posted **May 15, 2014, 7:59 PM**

This is one of those cases where the state can bend the rule for goodness sake. This is just ridiculous and uncalled for. Its not like a highrise is going up there and people will still be able to see the Capitol building. Sheesh if it's such a big deal then I guess they are going to have to cut the trees down that block the view in parts of the park.

I understand that if you allow exceptions to the rule then it opens up validity issues. But sometimes it can go overboard. Does it say in the law any type of structure even if it is not a building?

MightyYoda · #**130** Posted **May 15, 2014, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

This is one of those cases where the state can bend the rule for goodness sake. This is just ridiculous and uncalled for. Its not like a highrise is going up there and people will still be able to see the Capitol building. Sheesh if it's such a big deal then I guess they are going to have to cut the trees down that block the view in parts of the park.

I understand that if you allow exceptions to the rule then it opens up validity issues. But sometimes it can go overboard. Does it say in the law any type of structure even if it is not a building?

I agree that this crosses the line into "OMG CUT DOWN THE TREES, THEY ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW" area of insanity. I am ok with the CVC for the most part, but this is ridiculous.

MichaelB · #**131** Posted **May 15, 2014, 10:13 PM**

This is a bit silly. It's a "letter of the law" vs "intent of the Law" situation.
The facility my block the corner of the park…. but it adds more viewing of the Capital.

KevinFromTexas · #**132** Posted **May 15, 2014, 10:24 PM**

The nimbys sure do love saying boondoggle.

Maybe if Texas students had a better education system provided for them they would be better at math and be able to tell whether or not artsy structures will block the view of the Capitol dome. Just sayin'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The article didn't say, but I'm guessing there is not supposed to be any blockage of the view from the park. So, a homeless person for example, sitting in that one tiny corner of the park may not be able to see the capitol.

lol

lzppjb · #**133** Posted **May 15, 2014, 10:26 PM**

Legal issues...Guess they want to get a variance.

As for the poppy...lol everyone knows I think it looks silly. No skin off my back.

MichaelB · #**134** Posted **May 15, 2014, 10:49 PM**

Really hate to hear about the poppy. That was a really cool answer to a Pavillion.

Homecreek · #**135** Posted **May 16, 2014, 3:27 AM**

Meanwhile UT will get an "exemption" when they replace the bubble practice field over by I35 which blocks the best view of the Capitol anywhere

GoldenBoot · #**136** Posted **May 16, 2014, 4:06 AM**

A bit of a correction: the City was/is solely in charge of design and construction of the intake facility...not the Waller Creek Conservancy (WCC)!

Last year, the WCC realized that the height of the unconstructed "poppy" feature was in violation of a state CVC. They notified the City of this issue and at the same time they told the City that they were redesigning the feature to adhere with the CVC. Because of this discovery, the City realized that their intake facility, which was more than half constructed at the time, was also in violation of the same state CVC. Therefore, the $1.8MM in legal fees is solely due to a City error and has nothing to do with the WCC!

NYC2ATX · #**137** Posted **May 16, 2014, 7:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The "poppy" has been completely redesigned (it is blah and no longer resembles a "poppy") and moved to a different corner of the park.

Son of a bitch, I really liked the poppy.

The ATX · #**138** Posted **May 16, 2014, 8:31 AM**

It appears the intake facility will be rebuilt to comply with the CVC instead of any attempt to get a variance.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...pitol-v/nfxrJ/

Novacek · #**139** Posted **May 16, 2014, 1:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

A bit of a correction: the City was/is solely in charge of design and construction of the intake facility...not the Waller Creek Conservancy (WCC)!

Last year, the WCC realized that the height of the unconstructed "poppy" feature was in violation of a state CVC. They notified the City of this issue and at the same time they told the City that they were redesigning the feature to adhere with the CVC. Because of this discovery, the City realized that their intake facility, which was more than half constructed at the time, was also in violation of the same state CVC. Therefore, the $1.8MM in legal fees is solely due to a City error and has nothing to do with the WCC!

The city designed/constructed it, or they hired an engineering firm to do so?

If they're rebuilding it, why would they need 1.8 million for legal, unless they're going to try and get an engineering firm to pay for the mistake?

atxsnail · #**140** Posted **May 16, 2014, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

The city designed/constructed it, or they hired an engineering firm to do so?

If they're rebuilding it, why would they need 1.8 million for legal, unless they're going to try and get an engineering firm to pay for the mistake?

Correct, according to the statesman:

The engineering firms that signed off will be responsible for the cost of redesign/rebuild. The $1.8 million is for the emergency case where the firms lawyer up.