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

[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....

[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.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Syndic

A pedestrian bridge is not welcoming to a car.

Lol

[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.

[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?

[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 $.

[Syndic]

They will build a road crossing Shoal Creek at 3rd St. They're already expanding 3rd St. north of Seaholm in preparation for it. It's just a question of whether it will be one-way or two-way.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Spot on. I think there was some confusion about this....
It's not being a NIMBY to want to protect a unique bike/walk section of downtown that serves the people of the neighborhood it's in. I do social rides often through 3rd and commute to work safely and easily each day via 3rd st bike blvd. If y'all commuted on that road each day you would totally understand why it's special and should be left alone. I see so many downtown dwellers walking their dogs, jogging, biking, etc. We all have a love in common for dense urban development... It's why we're so passionate about these things.
The palm trees are pretty tacky though.....

and if I am indeed being a downtown NIMBY, so be it!

[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.

[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.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pecan trees don't last all that long, really (75 years).

[KevinFromTexas]

This one is less than 25 years old. The drought did a number on it even though I was watering it. Ironically I didn't water the palm trees at all.

[lzppjb]

Sorry to hear that. That drought did a real number on our trees.

[the Genral]

We didn't have palm trees in NY, too cold in the winter. When I moved here, we ended up at the Royal Palms Mobile Home Park at 79 and 183. We had tons of palm trees throughout the park and I thought, Texas, mild winters, and palm trees, how cool! Then one winter in the early 80's, it got cold, like single digit cold, and all the palms died. I have one palm on my property now which is a freeze resistant variety and is the only one that survived past freezes in my neighborhood. I guess you can "hate" palm trees, which I find an odd thing to hate in the first place, but for my northern friends and family, they are pretty cool
when they come to visit. They say its like a piece of tropicana.
Now if I was going to hate a tree, it would have to be our beloved water guzzling cedars.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Now if I was going to hate a tree, it would have to be our beloved water guzzling cedars.

http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/alamo/trees.htm

Numerous articles over many years have claimed that cedar (Ashe juniper) is a waterhogging plant that is depriving springs and streams of water and that its removal would provide large quantities of extra water. A new study appearing this spring has shown that, contrary to longstanding belief, increases in Edwards Plateau tree and shrubs over time have resulted in more—not less—water in regional streams.


The analysis of decades of stream flow data by Bradford Wilcox and Yun Huang of Texas A&M University showed that base flows in the Nueces, Frio, Guadalupe, and Llano rivers have significantly increased since the 1950s. Prior to the 1950s, base flows were about half what they have been since 1960. Total flow, which also includes storm flow from rainfall events, has increased in 3 of the 4 basins.

High numbers of sheep, cattle, horses, and goats on the land prior to 1960 (leading to overgrazing and overbrowsing) resulted in degraded watershed conditions. The bare land did not facilitate water infiltration, and the reduced groundwater was reflected in lower amounts of base flow in the streams. Reductions in the numbers of livestock in recent decades have allowed the vegetation of the watersheds to recover.

At the same time, numbers of trees (particularly cedar) have greatly increased. Thus, the vegetation recovered while becoming dominated by cedar. This vegetation recovery is responsible for approximately doubling the amount of base flow, because average rainfall has not increased during the period of study. Trees encourage water to infiltrate, and cedar is apparently beneficial in terms of increasing the amount of available water.

Myth: Cedar competes with other trees for water, eventually killing them.

Fact: There appears to be little or no evidence that cedar competitively replaces other trees. Yes, the tree is increasing in relative abundance due to lack of fire and perhaps livestock foraging (Smeins and Merrill 1988: 110; Owens 1996: 622). In addition, oak wilt, a fungal disease, may be contributing to a decrease in oak abundance. However, mixed cedar-oak and oak-cedar woodlands and forests are common in the Hill Country. Pure stands of cedar, which one would expect if they were driving out all other trees, are relatively uncommon.

Myth: A full-grown cedar tree will suck up 80 to 150 gallons of water a day.

Fact: A mature cedar will use about 33 gallons of water per day. A live oak of comparable size will use about 19 gallons per day (Owens 1996: 621).

Myth: Clearing cedar will provide lots of extra water for recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

Fact: While moderate amounts of clearing in small watersheds can increase the flows of minor springs in those places, it is very doubtful that this will translate into large quantities of water going into the Edwards Aquifer. That would require clearing almost all trees, including oaks, from the Hill Country, and would still not be effective unless the grasses that replaced the cedars and oaks were heavily grazed (White 2000: 7-8). In other words, only a barren Hill Country resembling a parking lot would provide large amounts of runoff to the Edwards Aquifer (White 2000: 1). It would be far better to keep the trees and simply use less water.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/alamo/trees.htm

Wow! Thanks for clearing that up....but they still make me sneeze

[lzppjb]

I can't begin to imagine how annoying cedars must be for allergy sufferers. I understand why so many people want them eradicated.

[Syndic]

Yep. Cedar allergy sufferer here. Spent most of my Life living here in the cedar allergy capital of the world. It's awful. Your eyes constantly feel like you have pink eye and you pretty much become this big, nasty snot monster for 2 months or so. I don't want the cedar trees gone, though. Cedar is actually a very lovely (and lovely smelling) wood. I just want doctors to come up with better ways of dealing with the allergy.