AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[lzppjb]

That's what Pfluger Bridge is for. I'd hate to spend more money on Lamar Bridge just to add sidewalks when millions were spent on Pfluger.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

That's what Pfluger Bridge is for. I'd hate to spend more money on Lamar Bridge just to add sidewalks when millions were spent on Pfluger.

I didn't say we should spend millions on sidewalks. I was simply pointing out the obvious. The millions spent on the Phluger bridge were because of the poor design (aka Tea Party-like cheap ass poor urban planning) of the Lamar river crossing.

[lzppjb]

When you mentioned walkways similar to S. 1st would make things better, I assumed you meant spend more money on Lamar bridge.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The Lamar bridges (both the river crossing and RR under pass) are major fails in my opinion for multiple reasons:

1. Aforementioned "art" installation

2. Extremely narrow and dangerous posted for "Emergency Use Only" sidewalks (Who in the F' thought that was a good idea?)

3. A large curb protrusion that juts out at the beginning of the bridge that has f'ed up many a front bumper and/or wheel

There were plans to widen the S. Lamar Blvd. Bridge back in the 1990's according to Bridges & Tunnels

In the early 1990s, the city secured $950,000 in matching federal funds to widen the South Lamar Boulevard Bridge as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).2 In 1995, the city signed a contract with HDR Engineering to study the project alternatives. All six options included various widening projects for South Lamar Boulevard Bridge. Meetings were held with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the Texas Historical Commission, the city and others.

Early on, the Texas Historical Commission indicated that it did not want the existing South Lamar Boulevard Bridge altered as it was a historic structure.2 Attendees of public meetings regarding the bridge project also indicated that adding more lanes to the span was also not an acceptable solution. In March 1998, the city council directed HDR to explore the option of designing a separate pedestrian and bicycle bridge across the Colorado River. Many felt that such a span would not solve the ongoing woes of the South Lamar Boulevard Bridge, but the city believed that it would create a safer crossing for pedestrians and cyclists.

Didn't somebody post city plans a while back for pedestrian walk ways similar to those added for the S. 1st street bridge? That would really improve this engineering/design disaster.

I think they were able to make modifications to the S. 1st Street Bridge - also known as the Drake Bridge because it's not designated histori.

http://www.shoalcreekconservancy.org...ridge-dilemma/

[cvalkan]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

I didn't say we should spend millions on sidewalks. I was simply pointing out the obvious. The millions spent on the Phluger bridge were because of the poor design (aka Tea Party-like cheap ass poor urban planning) of the Lamar river crossing.

The Lamar bridge is old enough that it may just be that when it was built it wasn't fashionable to consider pedestrians as much as we do today. Or perhaps they didn't forecast the current volume of traffic, both automotive and pedestrian, crossing the lake in that area. I know many years ago I used to jog on it when getting from one side of the lake to the other and would occasionally meet someone walking or running in the opposite direction. It was fairly tight, but we managed. No doubt the arrangement (width and lack of a barricade) is less than ideal but the original designers didn't see the future as clearly as we see the present. Even had the sidewalks been wider I think the Pfluger bridge would have been necessary eventually given the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on it on a nice day and given the desirability of separating both from cars.

Could be wrong I suppose.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by cvalkan

The Lamar bridge is old enough that it may just be that when it was built it wasn't fashionable to consider pedestrians as much as we do today.

That is so true. Lamar (especially S. Lamar) was all about the automobile. You had all those new car dealerships on N. Lamar. S. Lamar had just about every kind of shop you'd need to take care of your car. Muffler shops, tire stores, Mother's Window Tint, body shops, gas stations, car washes, used car dealerships, etc. places to buy car insurance, etc.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Found this from a city-date thread about the art:
"The concept for the project was to seem like you were going under water when you drove under the bridge."

Here's a thought, why don't we scrap the costly tree ordinance and all tree planting, and hire an artist to design some small green metal rectangles to line our streets so that it feels like we're driving through a forest. Genius. The city should be paying me six figures to be a consultant.

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by mars-man

Ah so, thanks!

Interesting! SF took over #1 in the country in job growth in 2014 among Large Metropolitan Areas. Austin is still #2.
I wonder if we will have a lot more high tech startups following us into Austin just as Google helped cause a high tech boom in San Francisco, in a very big way? Pretty good company to be in, I would say! Of course, SXSW doesn't hurt, either. I've heard rumblings that SXSW is getting too big for Austin, but that just might not be true, after all!
As far as all that high salary recruitment that is going on in San Francisco, we could use some of that here, too. Bring it! We certainly have the talent. And I have friends in the high tech sector that say it is already happening here, more and more.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

Interesting! SF took over #1 in the country in job growth in 2014 among Large Metropolitan Areas. Austin is still #2.
I wonder if we will have a lot more high tech startups following us into Austin just as Google helped cause a high tech boom in San Francisco, in a very big way? Pretty good company to be in, I would say! Of course, SXSW doesn't hurt, either. I've heard rumblings that SXSW is getting too big for Austin, but that just might not be true, after all!
As far as all that high salary recruitment that is going on in San Francisco, we could use some of that here, too. Bring it! We certainly have the talent. And I have friends in the high tech sector that say it is already happening here, more and more.

There's a lot of San Fransicsco threads.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

Interesting! SF took over #1 in the country in job growth in 2014 among Large Metropolitan Areas. Austin is still #2.
I wonder if we will have a lot more high tech startups following us into Austin just as Google helped cause a high tech boom in San Francisco, in a very big way? Pretty good company to be in, I would say! Of course, SXSW doesn't hurt, either. I've heard rumblings that SXSW is getting too big for Austin, but that just might not be true, after all!
As far as all that high salary recruitment that is going on in San Francisco, we could use some of that here, too. Bring it! We certainly have the talent. And I have friends in the high tech sector that say it is already happening here, more and more.

There's always rumblings that pop up each year. In reality it's just from people who either don't like SXSW and don't consider how much a part of the culture of Austin is tied to it or they don't want to except that Austin is growing and changing like the conference.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

There's always rumblings that pop up each year. In reality it's just from people who either don't like SXSW and don't consider how much a part of the culture of Austin is tied to it or they don't want to except that Austin is growing and changing like the conference.

Well, there is also the fact that the SXSW chief honcho likes to make rumbling noises about the possibility that the event is too big for Austin to handle. He did so again this year in an interview just a month or so ago. I think it was in the Texas Monthly article about SXSW. I suspect he makes these statements mostly to keep city officials from interfering with events that might require additional permitting or street closures. SXSW probably would not prosper long term in a different setting, and I think most everybody is aware of that.

[The ATX]

SXSW has already expanded to Las Vegas. I think Austin will always be the main event, but there's no reason why further expansion outside of Austin won't continue to happen.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Well, there is also the fact that the SXSW chief honcho likes to make rumbling noises about the possibility that the event is too big for Austin to handle. He did so again this year in an interview just a month or so ago. I think it was in the Texas Monthly article about SXSW. I suspect he makes these statements mostly to keep city officials from interfering with events that might require additional permitting or street closures. SXSW probably would not prosper long term in a different setting, and I think most everybody is aware of that.

Agreed, SXSW wouldn't be SXSW at all without Austin. I don't know how many times I've met and talked to people who are here for the conference and one of the main reasons they come is to enjoy what Austin has to offer. There are few other places that have the synergy we have, few that have the types of venues or the shear amount in close proximity together and none that have them both mixed just right.

I sometimes wonder about Texas Monthly and their view of Austin. It seems like the articles I read have a tinge of negativity towards the city. An article I read about the competition with Gigabit fiber here downplayed Austin's significance.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm just going to have to say it. I don't think people are going to want to do a big festival outdoors up north in bad weather. SXSW has now become the defacto spring break activity in Texas. I doubt they have the venues for it in South Texas, and the weather is still too iffy up north this early in the year for a lot of outdoor activities on the scale of a huge festival.

[pscajunguy]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Agreed, SXSW wouldn't be SXSW at all without Austin. I don't know how many times I've met and talked to people who are here for the conference and one of the main reasons they come is to enjoy what Austin has to offer. There are few other places that have the synergy we have, few that have the types of venues or the shear amount in close proximity together and none that have them both mixed just right.

I sometimes wonder about Texas Monthly and their view of Austin. It seems like the articles I read have a tinge of negativity towards the city. An article I read about the competition with Gigabit fiber here downplayed Austin's significance.

The Texas Monthly today is like The Texas Observer without the wit of Jim Hightower. It used to be fun, back in the 20th Century, but I'm really over it, now. But then, again, Austin has grown and changed and transformed so much since the Texas Monthly began publishing that they just don't know anymore what to make of Austin. In fact, they probably don't even know what to make of themselves. So I wouldn't worry too much about what they write about Austin.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm just going to have to say it. I don't think people are going to want to do a big festival outdoors up north in bad weather. SXSW has now become the defacto spring break activity in Texas. I doubt they have the venues for it in South Texas, and the weather is still too iffy up north this early in the year for a lot of outdoor activities on the scale of a huge festival.

Agreed.

Austin is perfect for it, location wise. The only city that could possibly compete is San Antonio, and SXSW is never going to move there.

And the new hotel capacity may in fact bring the SXSW V2V events to Austin.

[The ATX]

The Fairmont alone will definitely provide a big boost - not just because of the additional rooms, but conference space as well just as the JW did this year.

[Syndic]

San Antonio could compete? They don't have an ounce of the entertainment culture that Austin does.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Syndic

San Antonio could compete? They don't have an ounce of the entertainment culture that Austin does.

Oh oh. The SA lurkers will be fuming.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Oh oh. The SA lurkers will be fuming.

I'm just tired of people pretending that it's not a godawful, ridiculous idea. The only thing they have more of than us is surface-level parking lots, which the SXSW bigshots seem to be big fans of. I guess we're victims of our own success. But yeah last time I was in San Antonio all I could find there was metal and bad Christian-sounding "rock" music that only people in small towns listen to. Most Austinites really don't realize how different things are here than other places (in Texas, at least).

Moving SXSW from Austin would be like moving Sundance from Utah. It's just crazy. People come for the city as much as they come for the entertainment.