AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[lzppjb]

haha I have no idea what Lady Bunny is, but I could hear the voice anyway.

Work blocks imgur and photobucket. I can't remember which site, but one of the posters here uses it and his photos aren't blocked.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

haha I have no idea what Lady Bunny is, but I could hear the voice anyway.

Work blocks imgur and photobucket. I can't remember which site, but one of the posters here uses it and his photos aren't blocked.

She's a drag queen comic known for often beginning and ending sentences with the word "gurl".

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Something like this?

This is Houston Dynamo's BBVA stadium on the YMCA lot. I took the existing YMCA building and rotated it to the west end of the stadium. This is just to give an idea. The building would actually be incorporated like drummer suggested. I also threw in a rail station connected to the north side of the stadium.

The south side of the stadium would be car-accessible. It would require underground parking, or more likely, parking garages.

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but one thing to consider with this location is that the property partially sits within the Zilker Clubhouse CVC. I don't know what the height limitations are of that corridor, but the BBVA Stadium in Houston peaks at 69 feet at its highest roof point according to Google Earth, and the scoreboard peaks at 73 feet.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but one thing to consider with this location is that the property partially sits within the Zilker Clubhouse CVC. I don't know what the height limitations are of that corridor, but the BBVA Stadium in Houston peaks at 69 feet at its highest roof point according to Google Earth, and the scoreboard peaks at 73 feet.

Well, the info Paul posted already rules it out for a stadium.

Kevin, can you find out how tall the Stanford football stadium is? I think it's pretty cool, and it would be perfect for a lot with CVC. The field and first level of seats is below street level. You walk in at the top of the lower level, and below the upper level. Above ground it could be just 2 or 3 stories high, depending on how many upper level rows are wanted.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Well, the info Paul posted already rules it out for a stadium.

Kevin, can you find out how tall the Stanford football stadium is? I think it's pretty cool, and it would be perfect for a lot with CVC. The field and first level of seats is below street level. You walk in at the top of the lower level, and below the upper level. Above ground it could be just 2 or 3 stories high, depending on how many upper level rows are wanted.

Are you talking about the one in Athens? That one is 85 feet to the highest point on the 3rd deck according to Google Earth, plus a light fixture bumps it to 114 feet.

[wwmiv]

OMG! Wouldn't it be SO COOL if we had a stadium that had architectural cutouts in the stands to accommodate a CVC?

Sorry, had a moment there.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Are you talking about the one in Athens? That one is 85 feet to the highest point on the 3rd deck according to Google Earth, plus a light fixture bumps it to 114 feet.

Not Sanford. That's Univ. of Georgia.

Stanford. In Palo Alto, CA.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

OMG! Wouldn't it be SO COOL if we had a stadium that had architectural cutouts in the stands to accommodate a CVC?

Sorry, had a moment there.

LOL what if the side profile of the stadium was a bat with it's wings spread. The CVC would go through the dips in his wings.

Think batman signal...


http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...atman-stories/

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Not Sanford. That's Univ. of Georgia.

Stanford. In Palo Alto, CA.

Ok, it automatically went there.

Standford's is 96 feet to the top of the stands, and 142 feet to the top of the roof of the box seats.

[lzppjb]

That cannot be correct. It's much shorter than Georgia's stadium. They must be measuring from field level, which is 39 feet below grade. There is a sloped mound of soil around the stadium, so only a small portion is "above ground."

I'd like a stadium that is set into the ground without the mound.

Here's a photo showing the mound around Stanford Stadium. You can see it's not 96 feet high on the outside.


http://www.muralsyourway.com/sports-...orts-stadiums/

[drummer]

I like the idea of incorporating CVC's, actually. That could be really unique. One stadium that I love is that of the San Francisco Giants (AT&T Park). It has a cut-out that provides an awesome view of the bay. I don't see why something like that can't be incorporated.

So all of this stadium talk was a dream of mine as I was messing around on Google Earth. I think the same could happen at the Statesman site (albeit without the perfect location for a train station on tracks that already exist). There are probably other places where it could work also (especially outside of the immediate CBD), but I would love to see something downtown - and something that is multifunctional.


Edit: I especially love the idea that was put forth by lzzpjb about Stanford Stadium. Sinking a good chunk of the stadium could make even a fairly traditional design fit within the CVC. Although I guess it would also depend on the water table, etc...and with our luck, they'd probably find a cave system with some little creature that we've never met before. Not saying that's not important, but it would push pause on a stadium, haha.

[KevinFromTexas]

I measured from the road that circles the stadium to the parapet of the eastern upper deck, and also to box seats tower.

I'll admit that from the photo you posted, it doesn't seem quite that tall. One thing to consider is the trees around there are really tall.

One thing I did notice is they're using the old 3D building images, and those aren't very accurate or very well detailed. The ones they use for Austin and other big cities are more accurate and detailed. This is like the ones they use in Lubbock or Corpus Christi, and they're not nearly as detailed.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

LOL what if the side profile of the stadium was a bat with it's wings spread. The CVC would go through the dips in his wings.

Think batman signal...


http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...atman-stories/

Haha, with that design folks would mainly sit behind the goals. Not how functional that could be.


Edit: Ha, I was thinking the site from above - make the stadium look like a bat from the air. You're saying on its side...totally missed that.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I measured from the road that circles the stadium to the parapet of the eastern upper deck, and also to box seats tower.

I'll admit that from the photo you posted, it doesn't seem quite that tall. One thing to consider is the trees around there are really tall.

One thing I did notice is they're using the old 3D building images, and those aren't very accurate or very well detailed. The ones they use for Austin and other big cities are more accurate and detailed. This is like the ones they use in Lubbock or Corpus Christi, and they're not nearly as detailed.

Oh, you're using Google Earth. I thought you had managed to find elevations or something. haha

In that pic I posted, you can see the road you measured from in the foreground. You can certainly discern the slope heading up to the press box. I could see how that might be ~90 feet tall.

If it were to all be sunken at ground level, the peak height would basically be the height of the press box, which is what, 50 feet?

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by drummer

I like the idea of incorporating CVC's, actually. That could be really unique. One stadium that I love is that of the San Francisco Giants (AT&T Park). It has a cut-out that provides an awesome view of the bay. I don't see why something like that can't be incorporated.

So all of this stadium talk was a dream of mine as I was messing around on Google Earth. I think the same could happen at the Statesman site (albeit without the perfect location for a train station on tracks that already exist). There are probably other places where it could work also (especially outside of the immediate CBD), but I would love to see something downtown - and something that is multifunctional.


Edit: I especially love the idea that was put forth by lzzpjb about Stanford Stadium. Sinking a good chunk of the stadium could make even a fairly traditional design fit within the CVC. Although I guess it would also depend on the water table, etc...and with our luck, they'd probably find a cave system with some little creature that we've never met before. Not saying that's not important, but it would push pause on a stadium, haha.

I've always pondered a really forward thinking designed arena on the parcels the current APD is on Waller Creek. A street runs through there, but I was thinking it could straddle the street and have a tunnel beneath the stadium (not sure if that would ever fly in this day and age of terrorist attacks).

[KevinFromTexas]

Here's something you don't see every day. This is a video from 1985 of the 220 foot Sky Spiral Tower in San Marcos. It was dismantled in 2012.

• Video Link

[the Genral]

Ahhhh, Aquarina Springs, part of my intro to the area when I moved here. I think they also had a cable car ride, or maybe that was the San Antonio zoo...glass bottom boats....this was a pretty cool place to visit packaged with Wonder Word and a trip to the Snake Farm or the caverns and safari park. It made for a complete day not far from home. The view from the top was awesome. I wasn't too happy when they shut the place down and later turned it from an entertainment park to an educational experience. And who could forget the underwater submarine show with the mermaids and the diving pig?

[Jdawgboy]

I figured out of all the threads, this was the best one to bring this up.

We've been seeing an increase of new housing developments in my area landscape their entire yards (at least the front yards) with gravel or rocks and putting in very few plants. What few plants that are used are basically desert plants and it's like just 2 or 3 in one area then a scattering of other tiny plants.


To start off, It's really ugly. It does not match the natural environment of Austin. We are not El Paso, Phoenix, Tucson or Las Vegas. It does not fit with the surrounding areas. It's one thing to incorporate some rocks into the lanscape or use crushed granite for walkways, but to make the entire property rocks is just hideous.

It's not good for the trees and will cause a steady decline in their health.

Only makes the immediate area hotter than it normally would and much of the rainfall that falls on these "yards" won't sink into the ground properly.

I don't see how this reduces the need for yard upkeep because I already see grass coming up when I drive by these places and thats with lining underneath. The reason is obvious, grass is a natural part of our environment and it will grow as dirt and other organic debris gets stuck in between the rocks.

It's ridiculous to think that filling a yard up with rocks is in some way helping with water conservation. Xeriscaping doesn't mean creating a desert in your yard, it means utilizing native species. They can easily put in native plants, bushes, trees and grasses and once established will not need to be watered except under the driest drought conditions. Don't use St. Augustine or Bermuda, instead use Buffalo, Blue Gama, and native shade varieties under trees. Who cares if it goes brown in the summer, it will turn green again within a couple of days of a good rain. Seems odd to make a big deal about brown grass in favor of brown rocks which will always stay brown.

I don't want to see Austin turn into a desert due to bad landscaping practices. You don't go out into the surrounding countryside and see nothing but rocks or gravel. What these people are doing is creating micro desertification. There are a host of benefits that trees, plants and grass provide to the local surrounding environment including moderating the air temperature, providing food and shelter for animals, birds and butterflies. Taking those things away creates a chain reaction that goes far beyond having a yard full of rocks.

I've heard some say with Austin charging drainage fees for properties starting in 2016, that this disturbing trend will stop or at least slow but I think the city needs to set landscaping guidelines in terms of discouraging this type of landscaping. Its all good for them to discourage landscapes that overuse water but they need to discourage these desert landscapes that are nothing but rocks.

It's not just residential, seems like more commercial properties are doing it as well.

[hookem]

^^ Do you have some pics of what you are referring to? Because what you describe does sound like xeriscaping, and that's been encouraged by the water utilities here. The vast majority of xeriscaping projects I've seen incorporate native plants. And as far as the rocks, at least in West Austin, we've been told by hydrologists that they are the best thing to do... we have almost no topsoil on the west side. It's basically a light dusting of soil over limestone. And in the typical flash-flood situation, the natural landscape absorbs almost nothing and it runs right off (in typically devastating manner) into the creeks and streams. The right landscaping, incorporating rocks, can slow the rush of water and reduce damage and erosion. That's why detention ponds use them.

[lzppjb]

I'm with jdawg on this, and I've mentioned it before.