HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 10:29 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post


In all seriousness, I get people who didn't want the stadium. I don't get people who didn't like that it wasn't close enough to them so they are against the project which is what you said before going off on how supposedly mean the supporters were. It's just like how you said you would vote against a light rail plan that didn't go to way south Austin even though doing the starter line on N. Lamar would be amazing for the city and there isn't any way to finance them both at the same time.
Oh I'll still vote against rail if an initial line doesn't include a segment south of the river. It's a no brainer to have a line include SoCo then up Guadalupe. The only way that I'll vote yes is if there is a tentative and immediate expansion south within the next 5-7 years at most.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 10:34 PM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Oh I'll still vote against rail if an initial line doesn't include a segment south of the river. It's a no brainer to have a line include SoCo then up Guadalupe. The only way that I'll vote yes is if there is a tentative and immediate expansion south within the next 5-7 years at most.
I agree!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 10:34 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by abigdeal View Post
Can you point me to how rude the Supporters were in general? I’m sure there were a couple bad apples.
There were quite a few on Twitter.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 11:01 PM
Geckos_Rule's Avatar
Geckos_Rule Geckos_Rule is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austin
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Oh I'll still vote against rail if an initial line doesn't include a segment south of the river. It's a no brainer to have a line include SoCo then up Guadalupe. The only way that I'll vote yes is if there is a tentative and immediate expansion south within the next 5-7 years at most.
How dare you. We need a gondola going up SoCo then up guadalupe. It's perfect, and the city rejected the idea so quickly...


And back on topic, I've heard someone saying the team name is Austin Bold FC, not just Austin FC. Can anyone confirm?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 11:12 PM
chinchaaa chinchaaa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Oh I'll still vote against rail if an initial line doesn't include a segment south of the river. It's a no brainer to have a line include SoCo then up Guadalupe. The only way that I'll vote yes is if there is a tentative and immediate expansion south within the next 5-7 years at most.
Why do you think the that route is higher priority than than one that goes north?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 11:13 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule View Post
How dare you. We need a gondola going up SoCo then up guadalupe. It's perfect, and the city rejected the idea so quickly...


And back on topic, I've heard someone saying the team name is Austin Bold FC, not just Austin FC. Can anyone confirm?
Austin Bold is the USL team playing at COTA. The MLS team playing at McKayla is just Austin FC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2018, 11:13 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckos_Rule View Post
How dare you. We need a gondola going up SoCo then up guadalupe. It's perfect, and the city rejected the idea so quickly...


And back on topic, I've heard someone saying the team name is Austin Bold FC, not just Austin FC. Can anyone confirm?
The USL team is Austin Bold FC.

https://www.austinboldfc.com/
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 12:00 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinchaaa View Post
Why do you think the that route is higher priority than than one that goes north?
It's just as high a priority, I wouldn't say either would be higher priority than the other IMO. Besides, it makes more sense to start the initial line through DT from SoCo up through Guadalupe then expand from there cause that covers and serves central Austin. CapMetro will learn the hard way if the southside gets neglected in terms of mass transit. There are enough voters south of the river to halt any rail expansion without a real and tentative way forward for rail south of the river and I'm not talking decades down the road either.



But let's get back to soccer shall we. It does sound like Freeover is saying.... well since I was against the McKalla location then I nor anyone else who was against it is welcome to support this team. Or am I wrong in assuming that by the recent responses?
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 12:44 AM
abigdeal's Avatar
abigdeal abigdeal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Austin, yo
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
There were quite a few on Twitter.
Thanks for providing specific examples. Clearly I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 12:50 AM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
It's just as high a priority, I wouldn't say either would be higher priority than the other IMO. Besides, it makes more sense to start the initial line through DT from SoCo up through Guadalupe then expand from there cause that covers and serves central Austin. CapMetro will learn the hard way if the southside gets neglected in terms of mass transit. There are enough voters south of the river to halt any rail expansion without a real and tentative way forward for rail south of the river and I'm not talking decades down the road either.



But let's get back to soccer shall we. It does sound like Freeover is saying.... well since I was against the McKalla location then I nor anyone else who was against it is welcome to support this team. Or am I wrong in assuming that by the recent responses?
Everyone is welcome to support the team even the people who were against it for ridiculous reasons.

Last edited by freerover; Sep 1, 2018 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 12:55 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Antonio / Austin
Posts: 2,564
I usually just smile and nod with North Vs. South arguments....and I'll do that here!

ps. That name is kinda off to me )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 1:44 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 ahealy View Post
I usually just smile and nod with North Vs. South arguments....and I'll do that here!

ps. That name is kinda off to me )
You don't like the Austin Fart Cookies? FC will invite acronyms, especially if the team is playing poorly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2018, 3:01 AM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,945
I've never even encountered another pro-urbanist person who was against the stadium.
__________________
Anti-Leslie Pool. Bury I-35! Make The Domain public!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2018, 9:07 PM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Antonio / Austin
Posts: 2,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
I've never even encountered another pro-urbanist person who was against the stadium.
haha. perfect timing with your avatar, Syndic. The anti-stadium urbanist crap is silly as shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2018, 5:54 PM
atxsnail atxsnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syndic View Post
I've never even encountered another pro-urbanist person who was against the stadium.
There were quite a few of those on the atxurbanists Facebook group. Mostly they were there to virtue signal over how they opposed pro sports on principle or to offer up ridiculous non-starters like how the city should get equity in the team or league in return for the land.

Meanwhile I was screaming into the void about how progressive a zero parking space stadium downtown would have been and how the rail and bus adjacent Mckalla with 5,000 apartment units in walking distance was about as good a compromise as we'd ever see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2018, 2:51 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Everyone is welcome to support the team even the people who were against it for ridiculous reasons.
Well we all think of or say things that might sound ridiculous to other people, you are no exception to the rule. To each their own.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2018, 6:23 PM
verybadgnome verybadgnome is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Holly neighborhood, Austin
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxsnail View Post
There were quite a few of those on the atxurbanists Facebook group. Mostly they were there to virtue signal over how they opposed pro sports on principle or to offer up ridiculous non-starters like how the city should get equity in the team or league in return for the land.

Meanwhile I was screaming into the void about how progressive a zero parking space stadium downtown would have been and how the rail and bus adjacent Mckalla with 5,000 apartment units in walking distance was about as good a compromise as we'd ever see.
There are other options as well such as supporting a team, but not willing to subsidize it. 99% of businesses in Austin get nothing in the way of subsidies and if your business needs one I have to question the value of the good or service you provide. The economic case for stadiums, aside from the intangibles like civic pride, is pretty awful:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...ican-taxpayers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2018, 7:03 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
There are other options as well such as supporting a team, but not willing to subsidize it. 99% of businesses in Austin get nothing in the way of subsidies and if your business needs one I have to question the value of the good or service you provide. The economic case for stadiums, aside from the intangibles like civic pride, is pretty awful:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...ican-taxpayers
I don't think 99% of business in Austin get no subsides unless you want to treat all business equal. I would guarantee that the top employers by both salary and employee count do. And that's without getting cute about the fact that our two largest employers operate on state owned land that the city doesn't get to tax.

I generally think that stadium subsidies ought to be illegal or at least highly restricted on a national level, but I don't know how you do that. And until you do there will always be some other city willing to snipe your team, which means you better pony up when the owner wants a new stadium or you will lose a beloved past-time of your citizens. I think generally handing billionaires tons of money to build out something that is a profitable enterprise is dumb. MLS is a bit of a trickier widget as there is a lot of speculation by owners on potential future value of these franchises. Right now MLS has a garbage TV deal, decent average attendance and a serious problem of being looked at as a lower tier soccer league. Average salaries look to crest into the top 10 (top 8?) leagues in the next decade and the league is smartly expanding into solid markets in search of a TV deal (currently losing average viewers to Liga MX and EPL by a lot) and to try and become the pre-eminent soccer league on this continent (though, they have a *LONG* way to go to catch Liga MX in quality). So, this is an off-chance instance of which I think the owners probably do need to defray some risk as building a 200MM stadium is likely to not turn a profit for Precourt for a decade+ if ever.

The thing about this particular stadium is other than the taxable value of the land and whatever sales price the city could fetch we aren't on the hook for a bond package or stadium financing which puts this stadium deal on the "good end" of local city fleecing.

Lots of these studies also ignore the fact that many of these stadiums wind up built in suburbs nationally with overly rosy projections of growth for a suburban environment. Urban stadiums actual tend to bring economic growth.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f0...1d192a2731.pdf

There isn't good conclusive data on this, but lots of the issues that these studies point out is that suburban or fringe of downtown massive stadiums surrounded by parking lots do not spur economic growth. An integrated stadium into the urban fabric of a city may.

I would also posit that there are lots of "soft" benefits to stadiums. It's hard to state for sure, but there is something to be said for the overall attractiveness of a city on potential job seekers and job creators that is hard to measure or even attribute to a stadium.

Austin has always had a lot going for it, but there is a strong correlation with the opening of COTA and the cities explosive economic growth in tourism and international tourism. None of this is objective, but I have several times in Europe stated that I live in Texas and was asked "Oh, Austin?" which can be attributed to 1) Austin having a relatively high GDP per capita and a young population that I fit the profile of 2) Austin has stronger international name recognition because of the race.

We could argue around for days, but assuming the new Broadmore development gets off the ground and North Burnett continues to grow the stadium will find itself right smack dab in the middle of our second downtown and population center of the city. It's on us and council to make sure we push for smart growth in that area and make it pedestrian friendly because 20+ games a year filtering into local bars and restaurants can have a very large impact to the area.

It also means prying JJ Pickle away from UT and getting them to sell off some of that land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 3:32 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,272
Indy Austin is looking for a may vote to kill the stadium.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2018, 3:55 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Indy Austin is looking for a may vote to kill the stadium.

I would assume that if passed it would affect future deals. The McKalla deal should be signed, sealed, and delivered prior to any vote on this petition.
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 11:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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