AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II - Page 284

Raining Inside · #**5661** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 8:31 AM**

OU182 seems to be a nut job. TOLL ROADS ARE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!

jowens · #**5662** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 12:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yep. It's those mining structures between Buda and Kyle. They're some kind of stone storage buildings. I've always wondered about their height actually, but I haven't been able to find what company is connected to them. Definitely not San Antonio lol. You can see them from just about any structure in downtown that is at least 400 feet tall. I saw them from Spring when they had their topping out party. And you can see them from a few other places in South Austin, mostly along I-35. But I've always seen them from South First Street just north of Slaughter Lane. You can also see the Cabelas water tower there.

I've also wondered the height of the stone crushing / mining plant at Buda/Kyle. I can see it and the Cabelas Water Tower from William Cannon & SW Pkwy at the AMD Lone Star Campus.

Strayone · #**5663** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 2:53 PM**

That plant has always been a mystery to me, it is visible on the S bound 35 drive and sometimes it just looks like a mini city. I had to run an errand to Buda on Tues. and again it was milling at my attention while on 35 than as I pulled into Buda there it was just West of the town, it really is unsightly when up close.

StoOgE · #**5664** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 3:33 PM**

Does anyone know what Austin is trying to get Stimulus money for?

I am hoping a certain flood prone creek downtown might finally get turned into the flood controlled river walk-lite project everyone has envisioned for years.

Also, redoing the Y would be nice.

M1EK · #**5665** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OU812

I wouldn't be so quick to praise ole Kirk Watson. The guy has a LOT of skeletons in his closet... And in public office he seems to do what is politically expedient for HIM and the interests of his political cronies more so than what the people want. Most notably his stance on the tolling of 5 of Austin's existing highways- despite repeated outcries and massive protests during the CAMPO meetings of 2007 and in years prior....He just sits there with a smug look on his face as numerous residents expressed their frustration about having their city filled with upwards of 10 toll roads- all with ZERO votes from the public (only votes amongst the politicians).

If you like urban development and the environment, tolling those 'existing highways' [sic] was absolutely the right thing to do - as it starts to reverse the huge subsidies from urban drivers (and non-drivers) to suburban commuters.

[sic] because you anti-toll kooks are wrong - the existing highway's not being tolled anyways - just the new limited access capacity.

AustinSkyscrapers · #**5666** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 4:23 PM**

Ok now back to the Construction talk guys, it's just a little reminder that this thread doesn't get

.

StoOgE · #**5667** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

If you like urban development and the environment, tolling those 'existing highways' [sic] was absolutely the right thing to do - as it starts to reverse the huge subsidies from urban drivers (and non-drivers) to suburban commuters.

[sic] because you anti-toll kooks are wrong - the existing highway's not being tolled anyways - just the new limited access capacity.

I agree. I live off 45th street and work downtown.

I'm not thrilled with paying for toll roads so that people who live in Cedar Park can commute to Austin. Issue muni-bonds based on the earnings potential of the road and not GO bonds. Let the people who actually use the road pay for it.

migol24 · #**5668** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Wow, 56 floors and nearly 700' is a bit puny? I know there are buildings like the Sears Tower, and now Burj Dubai, but jeez man that's like saying Houston is a bit puny because there are cities like New York and Tokyo.

i'm not comparing it to chicago, or new york, or miami. it's only one building at 700' and it's big yes, but downtown in itself is still kinda small. i'm talking about density and all of that. we're getting there though

AustinSkyscrapers · #**5669** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 8:15 PM**

You're correct migol, we would really roll if we had those talls, if we get T Stacy, we got a good skyline that could attract more visitors to Austin.

fltnpatx · #**5670** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 9:38 PM**

What? The skyline doesn't bring people to Austin! Don't get me wrong because I love our growing skyline. But it is the street level things that make Austin better than any other Texas city.

H2O · #**5671** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 11:42 PM**

Kirk Watson for Governor!

JACKinBeantown · #**5672** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 1:32 AM**

Kinky Friedman!

StoOgE · #**5673** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 2:43 AM**

Ronnie Earl has actually filed with the state to run for statewide office. Looks like he is making a move to run for Governor.

KevinFromTexas · #**5674** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 4:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OU812

Do you really believe that??? So minus Kirk, Austin would not have any sort of downtown boom whatsoever?? I find that hard to believe. Everything works in cycles. Who do you hold responsible for the downtown boom of the 80s?

Kirk Watson did do a lot to get the ball rolling. It is true that the development boom in the 80s in downtown was impressive, but honestly it didn't do much for downtown. Sure we got a ton of office towers, but did any of them offer street level retail or any kind of public improvements? Nope. While the boom in the 80s would have happened anyway since it was purely driven by developer interests for the most part, it wouldn't have offered anything to downtown or the city or its residents without the influence and direction from city leaders. And it didn't. That's why they were just office towers. Even properties along Congress that very easily could have had street level retail, didn't. So yes, this decade, the boom has been driven by the economy, but it was directed by city leaders. That's something the boom in the 80s lacked. Direction. That's why we saw our first major suburban office towers. No one was calling for a focus on downtown and actual urban projects. It was purely driven by developer interests for more office space and profit. This boom has actually contributed something to the community and done something positive for downtown and the whole city.

As for toll roads, they were inevitable. There will always be whiners and complainers right along with the necessity for these things. I suppose Kirk Watson was the only one responsible for them in Austin (and hey, while we're at it, why not imply that he was responsible for them in other cities). Though now that he's a senator, I'm sure some will.

migol24 · #**5675** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fltnpatx

What? The skyline doesn't bring people to Austin! Don't get me wrong because I love our growing skyline. But it is the street level things that make Austin better than any other Texas city.

he didn't say austin skyline doesn't bring people... he said if we'd have that kind of skyline it would bring MORE people. austin does bring a lot of people around the country... but i'd like to see austin get more recognition worldwide... it's not there yet.

OU812 · #**5676** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raining Inside

OU182 seems to be a nut job. TOLL ROADS ARE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!

In what way am I a "nut job"? And umm where did I say toll roads were "evil"? I actually LIKE toll roads, I drive on toll roads all the time. SH45 North especially. Great way to get to IH 35 non-stop. I also drive on the Sam Houston Turnpike and the North Dallas Tollway when in those cities. So what's YOUR problem?

Is there supposed to be something wrong with me because I don't think 5 of our existing highways should be forever converted to tollways?? Especially when NO other proposals were considered, such as simple overpasses at the intersections? Especially when the majority public had no say in the matter? And especially- how ridiculous is it that a metro area of a mere 1.5 million is poised to have a whopping 10 tollways??? More than any city of it's size and MORE than most "big" cities??

Again, I like, no, I LOVE toll roads. I use them. I have a TXTAG. But this doesn't mean I like ALL toll roads. And I don't like the fact that WE have to pay for the mistakes of shortsighted politicians of yesteryear when they repeatedly voted down freeway initiatives at every opportunity. Highways 71E, 71W, 183E, 290E, 290W should have been expressways decades ago.

By the way, with all the federal stimulus money now being dolled out for transportation needs, I find it strange that no one in TXDOT, CAMPO, CTRMA have conceded that the 5 tollway-over-highway projects could use some of this money so that they WON'T have to be tollways. It's clearly all about profits for them.

OU812 · #**5677** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 6:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Kirk Watson did do a lot to get the ball rolling. It is true that the development boom in the 80s in downtown was impressive, but honestly it didn't do much for downtown. Sure we got a ton of office towers, but did any of them offer street level retail or any kind of public improvements?

The trend towards high rises with street level retail is something that has happened on a national scale over the past 15 years or so. It's certainly not exclusive to Austin. Kirk Watson, or NO Kirk Watson- it would have happened anyway.

All across major cities in the US, the trend towards building further and further out into the suburbs has changed in favor of revitalizing and living closer to the city core as people seek a more vibrant and urban lifestyle (which also doesn't force one to drive everywhere). It would only make sense to build street level retail on the bottom of a high residential tower because of the instant (and 24/7) clientele. But not so much for high rise office towers with no residential in sight.

OU812 · #**5678** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 6:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

If you like urban development and the environment, tolling those 'existing highways' [sic] was absolutely the right thing to do - as it starts to reverse the huge subsidies from urban drivers (and non-drivers) to suburban commuters.

[sic] because you anti-toll kooks are wrong - the existing highway's not being tolled anyways - just the new limited access capacity.

The problem with tolling existing highways is that it pushes us down a dark path of tolling every single thing the government can get their hands on- let 'em get away with this, then what's next?? What's really egregious is that they will sell our roads to private companies who ONLY have a profit motive, which means outrageous non compete clauses and the ability to raise toll rates to whatever they see fit. Pretty soon, more and more city services will include some type of "user fee" (which everyone knows- euphemism for taxes).

You want to talk about subsidies- for which you apparently perceive is unfair?? What about the fact that I have to pay AISD taxes when I have absolutely ZERO children? Why do I have to pay to educate other peoples kids???

Yes these highways are in fact being tolled. The land (Right-of-Way) underneath the highway was already paid for by our tax dollars years ago. So yes, it IS being tolled, and it IS being stolen from us- and we did not have ANY say in this matter. Only the politicians, you think this is appropriate??? The whole argument that it's just "new limited access capacity" is a red herring. If they really felt that it was in our best interest and that this is what the public wanted- then WHY NOT have the public vote for it- like everything else a civilized democracy?

And by the way, I assume you are speaking about someone else when referring to "anti toll kooks".

AustinSkyscrapers · #**5679** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fltnpatx

What? The skyline doesn't bring people to Austin! Don't get me wrong because I love our growing skyline. But it is the street level things that make Austin better than any other Texas city.

I think my way because of this, for example. It was to when Chicago had a Sears Tower they got more visitors in the city. You see, Sears Tower actually attracted people to that city, the Empire State Building does too, as well as many other structures around cities around the world. Many people enjoy looking at the skyline, go to the observatory deck and enjoy street life and culture. But yes, street life and culture have a greater effect that brings city people and visitors alike.

Aiphanes · #**5680** Posted **Jul 4, 2009, 8:06 PM**

Wow! Austin is not over 1 million people yet? I though it was...

Hopefully there will be more high rises taller the Austonian...but I doubt it.....

Maybe by 2025 the next boom will hit....