AUSTIN: Green Water Treatment Plant & Seaholm Power Plant Redevelopment Update Thread

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I didn't say it was happening at this time, in the literal sense; just that it's planned. The fact that they are splitting 3rd St. north of Seaholm seems to be pretty good evidence that it's in the works.

And how is building a road eliminating or reducing transportation options? To me, it seems like it's only adding options. Try to think beyond your own narrow self-interest.

"My narrow self-interest"? Clearly you're missing the mark, buddy. I see a CHARMING pedestrian bridge more welcoming to the public than a road for more cars (to be stuck in traffic).

I will also say, there's absolutely no need for personal attacks or bitchyness on here. When you express happiness regarding trees being cut down to extend a road, THAT sounds selfish. I happen to live in this neighborhood and know many many people who would not want to see 3rd street extended out for cars.

[AustinBob]

Ben Wear from The Statesman did an article about two years ago where he showed all of these new roads. The graphic that went with his article was similar to this one in that it was not clear what the plan was for 3rd St. I emailed Ben at that time and asked him if he knew if the city was planning a car bridge to connect 3rd St. east and west of the creek. He admitted that he didn't know but that he checked with his contact at the city and was told that the city hadn't decided but were thinking that it will not carry cars but will instead carry urban rail. Again, this is old news now but I don't recall the city publically stating anything to the contrary either.

[KevinFromTexas]

As long as the new bridge has room for bikes and pedestrians, I'm cool with it. It would be nice if they did another interesting bridge there like they're planning on 2nd Street maybe even with separated traffic.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by ahealy

"My narrow self-interest"? Clearly you're missing the mark, buddy. I see a CHARMING pedestrian bridge more welcoming to the public than a road for more cars (to be stuck in traffic).

Most Austinites don't/won't do much walking around that area. To get where they need to go, they'll need to drive. A pedestrian bridge is not welcoming to a car. But a road is welcoming to walkers, bikers, everyone. Therefore, it's obviously a superior option.

Originally Posted by ahealy

I will also say, there's absolutely no need for personal attacks or bitchyness on here. When you express happiness regarding trees being cut down to extend a road, THAT sounds selfish. I happen to live in this neighborhood and know many many people who would not want to see 3rd street extended out for cars.

Calling your motivation to prevent a road from being built "narrow self-interest" isn't a personal attack. It's an accurate depiction of reality. You don't want it built because it's right by your place of residence. If it wasn't and you had to drive or ride the bus to get around (like most Austinites), you probably wouldn't take that position.

The difference between my self-interest and your self-interest is that mine is most likely shared by most Austinites and yours isn't. It's NIMBYism.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Most Austinites don't/won't do much walking around that area. To get where they need to go, they'll need to drive. A pedestrian bridge is not welcoming to a car. But a road is welcoming to walkers, bikers, everyone. Therefore, it's obviously a superior option.



Calling your motivation to prevent a road from being built "narrow self-interest" isn't a personal attack. It's an accurate depiction of reality. You don't want it built because it's right by your place of residence. If it wasn't and you had to drive or ride the bus to get around (like most Austinites), you probably wouldn't take that position.

The difference between my self-interest and your self-interest is that mine is most likely shared by most Austinites and yours isn't. It's NIMBYism.

Haha. Take that "Most Austinites" mess to skyscrapercity.

Clearly you're looking for an argument. You know absolutely nothing about me or the projects going on in this area. I bus and bike to get around and obsess over alternative transportation options. THAT is why I do not wish to see a pedestrian road turned into an auto zone. This is not some diva moment where I can't stand to see a street extension in front of my fancy high-rise because of personal interest. I am all for 2nd being extended and improving our grid.
My main issue with 3rd being extended (for cars) is that it fucks up a part of the LAB and shrinks the capacity for pedestrian use.. Come check it out instead of looking at renderings and calling people NIMBYs. Do you really need to drive down 3rd instead of the 2nd st bridge?!?! I do realize most Austinites will be just as concerned as you are about this.
BYE.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Syndic

It will be nice to see those palm trees that are currently at that dead end get chopped down. Heheh.

Out of curiosity, why do you hate palm trees so much?

[alwaysmiling]

Yo Ahealy, take a deep breath... Im not taking sides but you might be taking things a bit personal here. It's not the end of the world if traffic can cruise by the front door of your building. It sucks that that road doesnt go thru but a little extra traffic should add to the liveliness of that current dead end. Always has been a liitle whack right there....

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Out of curiosity, why do you hate palm trees so much?

Because they're a cheap gimmick employed by some developers and landscapers to try to make something instantly seem tropical and paradisiacal (i.e. to turn everything into California) even though it isn't. It's disrespectful of other ecoregions and other cultures. These people think everyone wants to live in a tropical place so they plant palm trees everywhere. To me, it's just as tacky and ridiculous as planting giant cactii in the middle of New York City. But these ignorant developers and landscapers keep doing it. They think everyone wants to live in California. But I'm a damn Texan, so screw that.

[alwaysmiling]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Because they're a cheap gimmick employed by some developers and landscapers to try to make something instantly seem tropical and paradisiacal (i.e. to turn everything into California) even though it isn't. It's disrespectful of other ecoregions and other cultures. These people think everyone wants to live in a tropical place so they plant palm trees everywhere. To me, it's just as tacky and ridiculous as planting giant cactii in the middle of New York City. But these ignorant developers and landscapers keep doing it. They think everyone wants to live in California. But I'm a damn Texan, so screw that.

lol... Nice explanation... Personally I like palms but that's good stuff right there...

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Syndic

A pedestrian bridge is not welcoming to a car.

Lol

[lzppjb]

I like palm trees in Texas, but where they're supposed to be....on the coast.

While in Central Texas, I want to see Escarpment Oak and Pecan.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Haha. Take that "Most Austinites" mess to skyscrapercity.

Clearly you're looking for an argument. You know absolutely nothing about me or the projects going on in this area. I bus and bike to get around and obsess over alternative transportation options. THAT is why I do not wish to see a pedestrian road turned into an auto zone. This is not some diva moment where I can't stand to see a street extension in front of my fancy high-rise because of personal interest. I am all for 2nd being extended and improving our grid.
My main issue with 3rd being extended (for cars) is that it fucks up a part of the LAB and shrinks the capacity for pedestrian use.. Come check it out instead of looking at renderings and calling people NIMBYs. Do you really need to drive down 3rd instead of the 2nd st bridge?!?! I do realize most Austinites will be just as concerned as you are about this.
BYE.

Sorry, but extending third is absolutely not going to cut down capacity for other modes. It will, in fact, increase capacity for cars AND for other modes (namely buses) as well as generate pedestrian demand. There's no indication at all that the old pedestrian bridge has to go, nor that any of the current infrastructure will be removed. In fact, I'd wager that the current non-car infrastructure would be updated and improved with any project because this is Austin, after all, and the locals would cause a big stink if it weren't improved in conjunction with new car connectivity. So yes, in fact, you are being incredibly NIMBY.

[lzppjb]

I still think, looking at the map, a one-way bridge aligns with the existing train trestle. I figure they don't really know what to do with it, so they'll just replace it.

I saw an idea for it on the Shoal Creek Conservancy where they would make it an urban park across the trestle. They did something similar in Manhattan with the High Line Park, and are trying to do in Philadelphia with the Reading Viaduct (http://www.pennenvironment.org/progr...0%99s-park-sky).

[MichaelB]

Re: Third street bridge.
Heavily used bike corridor. Take it all the time. Why? Because It is safer and gets me away from cars to connect driectly to Town lake. Plus a great back way into whole foods… and soon to Trader Joes…..
Yes I live downtown. No I don't live in 360.
Folks who bike downtown all the time know how to get around the traffic grid and spaces like the 3rd street bridge are important to residents.
I am thrilled with three new streets. Happy to see third left alone.

And…. yes. I am a downtown NIMBY. So?
If you own your property, chances are you are too.

Rock on AHealy.

[lzppjb]

Why do you think that the pedestrian bridge would be removed?

[KevinFromTexas]

It is possible that they could build a new pedestrian bridge to the north or south of the new street bridge using a trail leading to it. That bridge is rather narrow as it is and that whole area is only going to have more bicycle and foot traffic in the future. The Shoal Creek trail could use some attention, too. It's crazy how narrow, steep and curvy it is. And have you ever been through there at night? It can be creepy at times.

[lzppjb]

Shoal Creek is supposed to be getting work, currently and in the future.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I like palm trees in Texas, but where they're supposed to be....on the coast.

While in Central Texas, I want to see Escarpment Oak and Pecan.

EXACTLY. I really don't mind palm trees in places they do belong (like California or the Texas coast). I just hate them in places they don't belong (like Austin).

[KevinFromTexas]

On the palm tree thing, I say if it can grow here without you having to hold its hand, then let it be. We have two of them in our yard that are way taller than the house and they're doing fine. Oddly enough, one of the three pecan trees we have is just about toast. Part of it broke off last year.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Why do you think that the pedestrian bridge would be removed?

I persoanlly don't. I thnk the graphics do not intened to suggest a new bridge.
They appear, to me, to be what they are….. a narrow pedestrian/bike bridge.
.
I was Just stating support for why it is useful as a bike corridor for local ( in this case meaning downtown) residents…. and, for that matter, anyone riding regularly in that area.

I also hope there is a way to preserve the old rail trestle. it's not "safe" for
humans as is…. It would take a lot of $ to make it a mini "highline".
Unfortunately it may not be worth the $.