HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 4:52 AM
the Genral's Avatar
the Genral the Genral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Between RRock and a hard place
Posts: 4,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
^^ Man, these things move painfully slow.
That way when Austin loses out, they lose out for all the right reasons
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 3:56 PM
Sigaven Sigaven is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
between the holidays, flu season, winter storms and the fact that we're the city of austin, it’s been slow going.
ftfy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 6:28 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral View Post
That way when Austin loses out, they lose out for all the right reasons
Something about this doesn't seem right. I read the memo in December and listened to the discussion in the council work session and I don't remember anything about needing PSV to pick locations. I thought the entire point was that the city needs to know about all the different options and not let PSV just pick wherever they want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 6:43 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Something about this doesn't seem right. I read the memo in December and listened to the discussion in the council work session and I don't remember anything about needing PSV to pick locations. I thought the entire point was that the city needs to know about all the different options and not let PSV just pick wherever they want.
Huh? PSV is a private entity. They have all the control in terms of where they will be or not be. The city's role was just to identify public space options that could be used or possibly made available to PSV likely via a long term land lease agreement between PSV and the city. IF there are no public sites identified by the city or private sites identified by developers THAT PSV DETERMINES AS VIABLE FOR THEIR BUSINESS then they won't be coming to Austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 7:10 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom View Post
Huh? PSV is a private entity. They have all the control in terms of where they will be or not be. The city's role was just to identify public space options that could be used or possibly made available to PSV likely via a long term land lease agreement between PSV and the city. IF there are no public sites identified by the city or private sites identified by developers THAT PSV DETERMINES AS VIABLE FOR THEIR BUSINESS then they won't be coming to Austin.
Of course this is the reality but the issue is what the council directed to city staff. The council wanted detailed breakdowns of different options and did not want to only look at the parkland that PSV wanted. What city staff is saying now contradicts the directive set forth by the council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 7:30 PM
loonytoony loonytoony is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom View Post
Huh? PSV is a private entity. They have all the control in terms of where they will be or not be. The city's role was just to identify public space options that could be used or possibly made available to PSV likely via a long term land lease agreement between PSV and the city. IF there are no public sites identified by the city or private sites identified by developers THAT PSV DETERMINES AS VIABLE FOR THEIR BUSINESS then they won't be coming to Austin.
Exactly this. Plus MLS itself has some say in location. For ex their preference for any expansion teams has been tied to stadiums located in central and walkable locations. If city were to stick to Expo Center this move won't happen. For what it's worth the land would potentially be the only cost/give from the City. PSV has already noted that private funds would pay for the stadium development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 7:50 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Of course this is the reality but the issue is what the council directed to city staff. The council wanted detailed breakdowns of different options and did not want to only look at the parkland that PSV wanted. What city staff is saying now contradicts the directive set forth by the council.
Interesting... can you give more specifics on whats changed? As far as I know the city was directed to identify city owned land that could be suitable for a stadium within some geographical boundaries. The city came back with 5 parcels. PSV just said 2 of those sites aren't viable for them/their business and they won't be locating there. ...Just curious what I'm missing here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 8:02 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom View Post
Interesting... can you give more specifics on whats changed? As far as I know the city was directed to identify city owned land that could be suitable for a stadium within some geographical boundaries. The city came back with 5 parcels. PSV just said we won't be building at 2 of those sties. ...Just curious what I'm missing here

Nov 10: Council asks City Staff for report by December for all potential locations for a MLS stadium with specific emphasis on serving a generic MLS team as oppose to the Crew

Dec 14: City Staff releases preliminary report without much detail and says in the report, "staff plan to continue exploration and have a more comprehensive analysis for council consideration on or before feb 15th. In the work session, they make it clear this is just what they were able to throw together and they really need an extension to get the report done.

Nowhere in the report did it say anything about needed feedback from CSV about what options from their preliminary report should be excluded in their full report. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio....cfm?id=290096


Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytoony View Post
Exactly this. Plus MLS itself has some say in location. For ex their preference for any expansion teams has been tied to stadiums located in central and walkable locations. If city were to stick to Expo Center this move won't happen. For what it's worth the land would potentially be the only cost/give from the City. PSV has already noted that private funds would pay for the stadium development.
We all know this but we have to get to the point that it is being discussed in City Council chambers with citizens and the date for that discussion keeps getting pushed back. If I didn't know any better I would say that Pool or Atler is conspiring with the parks department to get them to drag the process out but I don't think they can do that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 1:20 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
Zach Theatre doesn't want a stadium at Butler Shores.

http://kxan.com/2018/01/19/zach-thea...butler-shores/
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 1:52 AM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 198
This part of the story seems like a departure from their original email.

Quote:
“ZACH Theatre is very excited about the possibility of MLS Soccer coming to Austin on the appropriate site. We are concerned that the Toomey Road location will present problems given the proximity to neighborhoods, Zilker Park and ZACH, considering the traffic and parking issues that already exist. However, we have already had conversations with Precourt representatives and are ready with an open mind to hear what solutions they may have to address these issues,” Challener said in a statement to KXAN.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 7:21 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Well, it seems that everyone is a NIMBY....even Zach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 5:14 PM
futures futures is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Well, it seems that everyone is a NIMBY....even Zach.
Hopefully they actually are taking an open-minded approach to the situation.

I can't see how they'd be against it though... There would be a slight hassle on the nights that games overlapped with ZACH productions, but otherwise they'd get a TON of free advertising from people walking by it before and after games.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 6:55 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by futures View Post
Hopefully they actually are taking an open-minded approach to the situation.

I can't see how they'd be against it though... There would be a slight hassle on the nights that games overlapped with ZACH productions, but otherwise they'd get a TON of free advertising from people walking by it before and after games.
You know, I was thinking the same thing. There's no reason they couldn't even capitalize (for the sake of the arts) on a game night - advertising, specials, etc. It wouldn't appeal to everyone, of course, but there are several of us who enjoy the arts AND sports.

And with parking and traffic, why aren't the up in arms with every single even south of the river ever? I know that this would be essentially right next door, but folks are really being narrow minded about how things could actually work with the stadium there. It could actually even improve things in the area if folks worked together to make it work - private businesses, non-profits, city government (haha!)....etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 2:24 PM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 198
You guys and your logical rebuttals to NIMBYism. It’s cute. The thing is, they won’t listen to reason. I’m sure the fact that PSV didn’t come crawling to them on hands and knees before even thinking about suggesting Butler Shores is part of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 6:51 PM
urbancore urbancore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by abigdeal View Post
I’m sure the fact that PSV didn’t come crawling to them on hands and knees before even thinking about suggesting Butler Shores is part of it.
The thing is they don’t care if you grovel or not. And when you grovel, they turn your words against you, on top of the shit they just make up. They believe the ends justify their means, they will spread rumors, and straight up bullshit. It’s quite remarkable, especially when they complain about conservatives. They both stick their heads in the sand about different issues.

If they would just give devolpers a fair listen, then developers might work not start by asking by asking for the moon, knowing they will never get it, but they need a wild starting point to start negotiating with.

I know a lot of these people in my hood. I can’t tell them how I think, or they will talk shit about you. It’s crazy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:54 PM
paul78701 paul78701 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
You know, I was thinking the same thing. There's no reason they couldn't even capitalize (for the sake of the arts) on a game night - advertising, specials, etc. It wouldn't appeal to everyone, of course, but there are several of us who enjoy the arts AND sports.

And with parking and traffic, why aren't the up in arms with every single even south of the river ever? I know that this would be essentially right next door, but folks are really being narrow minded about how things could actually work with the stadium there. It could actually even improve things in the area if folks worked together to make it work - private businesses, non-profits, city government (haha!)....etc.
The Zach peeps are also against the (currently postponed) condo redevelopment proposed for the former Taco Cabana site across the street. Soooo....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 8:33 PM
futures futures is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 223
Well it sounds like the ZACH people are just dumbasses then. Why would they NOT want thriving attractions around their business???


Also, I've never understood how/why neighborhood associations hold so much power, especially over developments that are adjacent to their neighborhoods (not IN their neighborhood).

I live in Bouldin, and I've shown up to a few neighborhood meetings out of curiosity. We're literally talking about 20ish people that have nothing better to do and somehow represent all of the residents. Their committee can ignore the will of others that show up to the meetings - it's rare that their opinions represent a majority of the neighborhood. They also have minimal knowledge on real estate, city planning, or economics as a whole. But somehow these few people (and a handful in Zilker) can heavily influence the development of a city.

Why?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 9:24 PM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 198
Because they vote. And they used to have the ears of 100% of the Council. I still have hopes that 10/1 will change that dynamic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 11:41 PM
SkyPie's Avatar
SkyPie SkyPie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 265
To contact all City Council Members, click http://www.austintexas.gov/governmen...n_A&promo=6085, scroll down to the bottom left and choose the selection "Email all Council Members”.

We need to be sure they hear from people other than the 20 neighborhood activists in Bouldin . I've already sent my email.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 12:05 AM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyPie View Post
To contact all City Council Members, click http://www.austintexas.gov/governmen...n_A&promo=6085, scroll down to the bottom left and choose the selection "Email all Council Members”.

We need to be sure they hear from people other than the 20 neighborhood activists in Bouldin . I've already sent my email.
This is very good advice. Council only hears from the complainers.
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 11:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.