Sports in Austin - Page 74

chinchaaa · #**1461** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 8:55 PM**

https://communityimpact.com/austin/n...ium-site-plan/

What do the NIMBYs have to say now?!

clubtokyo · #**1462** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 9:06 PM**

Wow, if they don't approve it now, I give up. Also he must really want to be in Austin.

sammyk · #**1463** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 9:20 PM**

I thought I read earlier that if he wanted to move the team from Columbus that he could only move it to Austin. Is that not the case or has that changed? Just wondering due to the talk of Sacramento or other places.

N90 · #**1464** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 10:42 PM**

We should give Anthony Precourt the key to the city of Austin. This man loves Austin so much that it almost brings tears to my eyes, he may even love it more than many of the people that live there and love it (definitely loves ATX more than ATX's shit ass city council).

ILUVSAT · #**1465** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 10:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyk

I thought I read earlier that if he wanted to move the team from Columbus that he could only move it to Austin. Is that not the case or has that changed? Just wondering due to the talk of Sacramento or other places.

The talk of moving to Sacramento is B.S. His purchase agreement did say he could move the team to Austin, specifically. However, no other city was listed as potential sites.

papertowelroll · #**1466** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyk

I thought I read earlier that if he wanted to move the team from Columbus that he could only move it to Austin. Is that not the case or has that changed? Just wondering due to the talk of Sacramento or other places.

I think the contract is with MLS. Precourt can move to Austin if he pleases, whereas moving to Sacramento would require permission. Of course, MLS could very well grant that permission.

abigdeal · #**1467** Posted **Jun 26, 2018, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I think the contract is with MLS. Precourt can move to Austin if he pleases, whereas moving to Sacramento would require permission. Of course, MLS could very well grant that permission.

Pretty sure Sacramento move would be related to a sale to a local ownership group.

the Genral · #**1468** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 3:06 AM**

Sacramento already has a soccer team, USL, and AAA baseball and the Kings, NBA. They probably wouldn't be that eager to give up much for an MLS team. Compared to Austin, and Columbus for that matter, Sacramento may have enough of a saturated sports market to warrant not investing there or competing for fans to fill the seats.

oberthewhat · #**1469** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 4:55 AM**

this would be perfect. IF they do build the stadium, all this tug of war with the city is sure getting a lot of attention. Great marketing strategy.

The ATX · #**1470** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 5:04 AM**

Here's the new site plan from that Community Impact link and the ABJ. One of the surface lots becomes a 4-story parking garage and 4-story affordable apartment complex.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...plan-more.html

StoOgE · #**1471** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 9:58 PM**

What time is the vote expected on these resolutions today?

abigdeal · #**1472** Posted **Jun 27, 2018, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoOgE

What time is the vote expected on these resolutions today?

Not at all. Sometime tomorrow night.

GoldenBoot · #**1473** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 2:27 PM**

Broadmoor Rail Station gets funding.

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/loc...9SEUnUOttYYvN/

This opens the way for PSV and/or Cap Metro to develop a new stop at the proposed stadium site. BUT, will the council approve the stadium at this site and who will fund it? As of now, PSV and Cap Metro have yet to show interest in funding the ~$13 million station at the proposed stadium site (McKalla).

Jdawgboy · #**1474** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Here's the new site plan from that Community Impact link and the ABJ. One of the surface lots becomes a 4-story parking garage and 4-story affordable apartment complex.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/n...plan-more.html

Really? The one aspect that nearly had me on the edge of supporting is optional???? Thought the rail station was a sure thing not now it's optional.... Shortshighted at the very least and downright the worst possible move at most.

I still say the Riverside Corridor would be the best fit. Multiple sites with enough land to build a stadium. Could have joined up with Catalyst to get a stadium as part of their expansive development and Riverside is a prime rail corridor, closer to Downtown. Well whatever is decided will be so. If the city moves forward, you won't hear me griping. If they don't then I'll be glad in that it was a bad site to begin with and didn't fit MLS's urban stadium near Downtown requirement which they stressed for future expansion cities from the very beginning. I think it's pretty odd how quickly people forgot about that or chose to...

ILUVSAT · #**1475** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Really? The one aspect that nearly had me on the edge of supporting is optional???? Thought the rail station was a sure thing not now it's optional.... Shortshighted at the very least and downright the worst possible move at most.

I still say the Riverside Corridor would be the best fit. Multiple sites with enough land to build a stadium. Could have joined up with Catalyst to get a stadium as part of their expansive development and Riverside is a prime rail corridor, closer to Downtown. Well whatever is decided will be so. If the city moves forward, you won't hear me griping. If they don't then I'll be glad in that it was a bad site to begin with and didn't fit MLS's urban stadium near Downtown requirement which they stressed for future expansion cities from the very beginning. I think it's pretty odd how quickly people forgot about that or chose to...

1) Until today, the rail stop was a no-go. So, yes, all they could say is that is is "optional." It would be too close to the current Kramer Station and the authorities would not allow one to be built at McKalla if the Kramer Station stays where it is. Now that the Kramer Station is "moving north" to Broadmoor, it opens up the possibility of a McKalla station.

Now that it is a true possibility, someone is going to have to fund it.

2) Nashville is a MLS expansion city and they are not building their stadium downtown. It's at the Nashville Fairgrounds. So, no, a downtown stadium is not a requirement. It is strongly desired (for obvious reasons), but, not required.

****AUSTIN - I'm praying for you today. I hope you get your MLS team. Austin would make a tremendous market for MLS. And, for what it's worth...I really like the McKalla site. Yes, I would prefer to see it downtown. But, the density around McKalla is great for a stadium.

Novacek · #**1476** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

As of now, PSV and Cap Metro have yet to show interest in funding the ~$13 million station at the proposed stadium site (McKalla).

More specifically, PSV stated that they feel they shouldn't pay the _full_ cost (emphasis added) of the station, since they'd only use it 20/365 of the year.

https://www.statesman.com/sports/pro...8ARSF4EvIWOHO/

And their initial negotiating position had them not paying for it. Though they said it's up for discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Multiple sites with enough land to build a stadium. Could have joined up with Catalyst to get a stadium as part of their expansive development

Yeah, I'm sure Catalyst (which may not even happen, since their TIA analysis showed a huge increase in the number of trips) would be happy giving up 1/6 of their land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

and Riverside is a prime rail corridor, closer to Downtown.

In the _best_ case, Riverside won't have rail for another decade (election in 2020, 7 years design/build).

Most likely, it's 15-20 years out. Or more.

a) 2020 election may just start the process (authorizing) but not actually be the bond election to pay for it all.
b) Election may fail.
c) They'll probably start with the Guadalupe/Lamar corridor, and do Riverside second (or third, after South Congress).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

If they don't then I'll be glad in that it was a bad site to begin with

It's the best of the proposed sites (better connectivity and more urban than Butler Shores or Guererro).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

and didn't fit MLS's urban stadium near Downtown requirement which they stressed for future expansion cities from the very beginning. I think it's pretty odd how quickly people forgot about that or chose to...

It is urban (again, more than the alternatives). It is "downtown" if you buy into the whole "North Burnet is the second downtown". Which isn't quite true yet, but is actually getting a lot closer.

Tyrone Shoes · #**1477** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 6:46 PM**

What if the property associated with the stadium (parking lots, stadium and grassie areas) be exempt but the areas that are developed as mixed use, low income housing etc be taxed.....

The ATX · #**1478** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 8:11 PM**

From today's City Council actions:

http://austintexas.gov/council_meeti...es.cfm?mid=609

N90 · #**1479** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 8:29 PM**

Is that good or bad?

From the initial read it looks like city council is about to screw up again.

Novacek · #**1480** Posted **Jun 28, 2018, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by N90

Is that good or bad?

From the initial read it looks like city council is about to screw up again.

It's now item 130