Waller Creek Flood Tunnel & Trail Update Thread

[MichaelB]

Ya'll just get old school and grab a statesman today. Full article in there.

[The ATX]

Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/

[Spaceman]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/

This is a major screw up.....Something smells...A child could have designed this project

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Here's KXAN story about this project and the CVC in general. I didn't realize this, but the construction of One American Center in 1982 was the reason CVCs were established:

http://kxan.com/2014/05/16/mayor-cap...d-be-resolved/

From that article:

A Capitol View Corridor snag is not expected to delay next year’s opening of the Waller Creek Tunnel project.

Fast-forward one month.

Report: Fixing Waller Creek Tunnel design flaw could cost millions
Austin American Statesman
June 18, 2014

A major design flaw in the city of Austin’s $149 million Waller Creek Tunnel project could cost between $15 million and $45 million to fix and delay part of the project by one to four years.

That is the conclusion of an eight-page report done in April, shortly after city officials realized that a tall intake building for the flood-control tunnel would violate state law by obstructing views of the Capitol. As designed, the intake would be 32 feet tall on its highest, eastern side — about 16 feet too tall.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

From that article:



Fast-forward one month.

Report: Fixing Waller Creek Tunnel design flaw could cost millions
Austin American Statesman
June 18, 2014

It's not fast forward, it's reverse. The city report was in April, and then in May they said there would be no delays.

So either they were lying in May, or (more likely) the report was obsolete and it's crappy news reporting looking for click-bait reporting on a 2 month old document that isn't anything new.

[migol24]

Is the view corridor of the Capitol that big of a fucking deal? Is it worth spending another $15 to $45 million just to protect the "beloved view" of the Capitol?

[KevinFromTexas]

As the article states, that view is already blocked by a state office building that was built in 1959 before 1983 when the capitol view corridors were established. I think the logic is that if the old state office building were ever demolished that whatever replaced it would undoubtedly have to obey the cvc rules.

By the way, I remember Hill Country mentioning that he read somewhere that it was the One American Center that encouraged the implementation of the view corridors. That makes sense if they were put into place in 1983. That's right about the time the One American Center would have been at least halfway topped out.

[alwaysmiling]

Originally Posted by migol24

Is the view corridor of the Capitol that big of a fucking deal? Is it worth spending another $15 to $45 million just to protect the "beloved view" of the Capitol?

No it's not. Not in this case. The powers at be should recognize this and the taxpayers of Austin should not be on the hook. The city and state need to come to an agreement that is conservative with our tax dollars. Do I have faith in this type of common sense answer to this mostly insignificant problem being exuded by our government bodies? Absolutely not... Incompetence I tell you, and an absolute waste. Where is the accountability?

[lzppjb]

I love our view corridors, or at least the idea behind them. I think it adds character to our town. With that said, I do not support millions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent on this mistake just to adhere to the CVC.

I'll be pissed if they don't lift the restrictions in this case. They need to do a better job of checking this stuff before it's under construction. This is twice in the last year (Gables & the Lamar CVC). They need to do their job. Don't screw up and stick us with the bill.

[KevinFromTexas]

I generally like the view corridors also, but I think there's a problem with them. I don't think they're being properly enforced. I think, too, having both the city and the state involved is causing some confusion and chaos. Too many of them have been neglected through the years and not maintained. Some of them have trees and powerlines blocking them, and there are some older buildings that predate them that block them. I doubt very much that any trees of a mature size/age are going to be trimmed to protect the views. Of course older buildings that are not historically/architecturally significant could eventually be torn down, but even that's not likely since the two biggest reasons buildings are demolished is either structural deficiency or because something bigger is planned there. And of course in this case nothing larger could be built, so that only leaves structural deficiency. Most of the time governmental bodies will use a building until it is absolutely falling apart. Even after an office is moved out of one smaller building to another larger one, the smaller one is usually given to some other department.

Anyway, I sort of get the drift that they aren't being actively maintained and enforced. I think it's also a situation of a lack of organization on the city and state's part of making sure that every property within the corridor has its owner notified that their property lies within one, how to maintain the view and notifying developers and other city departments of them anytime any work is to be done on the property.

[Digatisdi]

I agree, I like the CVCs to an extent but since view corridors are kind of... Rare, especially for a city this size, I feel like it's kind of one of those things that gets overlooked.

Personally I feel there are far too many CVCs. 30 seems excessive.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'd rather let the view from the park go away and instead build some kind of observation deck or even another observation hill like what's in Butler Park to enjoy the view. I'm worried that Waterloo Park won't be the major attraction that it should be. It needs something central to draw people to it. So far our urban parks are pretty lackluster. Butler Park is an improvement of course.

[Texas Jeff]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'd rather let the view from the park go away and instead build some kind of observation deck ... to enjoy the view.

An artist's rendering in the Statesman article shows a deck for people on top of the current design for the intake. It also shows waterfalls coming out of the intake into the creek.

Looks pretty nice to me as designed and you get a new view from the top of the intake. Why not just modify the CVC and save the bucks?

[MichaelB]

Write your legislator and the city. Now. This is a trade off where more people will be served by seeing the Capitol on top of the observation deck!
This only makes sense in this case.

[NYC2ATX]

What's most irritating for me about this issue (or non-issue really), is that I believe this particular view corridor is reserved for... Interstate 35...you know, the one that may be underground soon? This is one of the view corridors that should be of least priority, certainly one that shouldn't cause us to spend millions of dollars and years of time to subtract 16 feet from a structure.

I guess every city in America has some stupid aspects of its bureaucracy, but if Austin wants to appear progressive, this should not be of major concern. The view corridors are great in some respects, but in this era of explosive development, there has to be more flexibility.

[The ATX]

This should definitely be a CVC exemption considering the location and possible hurt to tax payers. Absolutely nobody hangs out in that corner of a sorry city park to view the capitol.

[corvairkeith]

Wasn't there talk a few years back about a possible high rise going right on the other side of Red River on the Brick Oven lot? Seems strange that lot isn't in the CVC but the park is.

[MightyYoda]

Love the idea of adding an observation deck. People get to see the Capital and much cheaper.

[The ATX]

KXAN reported at 6:00 PM that another building (built before the CVC law) partially blocks that view already. So the blockage from the intake facility isn't even as bad as the 16 feet overage implies.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

As the article states, that view is already blocked by a state office building that was built in 1959 before 1983 when the capitol view corridors were established. I think the logic is that if the old state office building were ever demolished that whatever replaced it would undoubtedly have to obey the cvc rules.

If that is the case, then why not just add an agreement that whenever the existing building blocking the view is torn down, the intake facility will have to be reconstructed to be 16' shorter and thus ensure effective compliance. It might be 20 years down the road or later, for all we know. By then some improvements in the intake structure might be desired anyway, and the new development along Waller Creek might have already added a lot of money to the tax rolls. It could even be part of their special tax/assessment, that they may need to collect to pay for the reconstruction at some future time.