Convention Center Expansion - Page 11

lzppjb · #**201** Posted **Mar 30, 2019, 10:54 PM**

Thanks for the visuals.

atx-adam · #**202** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul78701

Here's a direct link to the UT report:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...port-2019.html

Really fascinating study. It touches on a nice mix of topics relevant to this forum: architecture, place planning, urban design, transportation, and economic growth. I recommend taking the time to read it.

I came away hoping that 4.2 is adopted. I’d love to take back the connectivity of 2nd Street across downtown.

freerover · #**203** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 4:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx-adam

Really fascinating study. It touches on a nice mix of topics relevant to this forum: architecture, place planning, urban design, transportation, and economic growth. I recommend taking the time to read it.

I came away hoping that 4.2 is adopted. I’d love to take back the connectivity of 2nd Street across downtown.

Why not 5.2?

Echostatic · #**204** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 4:24 PM**

I'm going with Scenario 3 or 4.1. Scenario 3 seems like the likely solution they'll go with, and I think it's the most effective scenario for its cost. 4.1 is probably what will happen on a longer timescale, but not immediately. 5 is probably too bold and too costly to happen for a long time.

shoreditch · #**205** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 6:07 PM**

Does the city or convention centre own those blocks to the west? Or would they have to acquire them?

freerover · #**206** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Scenario 3 seems like the likely solution they'll go with, and I think it's the most effective scenario for its cost. 4.1 is probably what will happen on a longer timescale, but not immediately.

3 and 4.1 are mutually exclusive. They both do the same basic thing but 4.1 puts you in a position where you can take the 1992 convention center section offline for a few years during reconstruction. I think pursuing 3 says you aren't interested in 4.2.

Echostatic · #**207** Posted **Mar 31, 2019, 9:36 PM**

The only difference I see between 3 and 4.1 is the reconstruction of the original Convention Center. You could build the Western Expansion now, and then rebuild the 1992 center sometime in the 2020s.

freerover · #**208** Posted **Apr 1, 2019, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

The only difference I see between 3 and 4.1 is the reconstruction of the original Convention Center. You could build the Western Expansion now, and then rebuild the 1992 center sometime in the 2020s.

Look at the floor breakdowns. They are completely different.

AusTex · #**209** Posted **Apr 1, 2019, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoreditch

Does the city or convention centre own those blocks to the west? Or would they have to acquire them?

"An expansion of the convention center could require the city to acquire three or even four downtown blocks,..." from an AAS article on the first Post. I do not think the city has moved on those blocks yet, though I'm not really up the date.

Jdawgboy · #**210** Posted **Apr 1, 2019, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

"An expansion of the convention center could require the city to acquire three or even four downtown blocks,..." from an AAS article on the first Post. I do not think the city has moved on those blocks yet, though I'm not really up the date.

Would they still need that many blocks if they plan to add convention space by building up?

freerover · #**211** Posted **Apr 1, 2019, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Would they still need that many blocks if they plan to add convention space by building up?

Yes but they would eventually free up more space to use for private development.

AusTxDevelopment · #**212** Posted **Apr 1, 2019, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AusTex

"An expansion of the convention center could require the city to acquire three or even four downtown blocks,..." from an AAS article on the first Post. I do not think the city has moved on those blocks yet, though I'm not really up the date.

Here are the tax numbers for the blocks around the Convention Center in case somebody wants to do the work. None of the west parcels are owned by the city.

We vs us · #**213** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 6:17 PM**

Here's a link to the formal presentation -- greatly abbreviated from the original 295 pg report.

Lots of big pretty pictures.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=317172

Sigaven · #**214** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 7:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Here's a link to the formal presentation -- greatly abbreviated from the original 295 pg report.

Lots of big pretty pictures.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=317172

Do they know something about I-35 that we don't? :O

freerover · #**215** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Do they know something about I-35 that we don't? :O

It's based on an old proposal. No one knows what the current plan is after the Capital Express debacle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lVBzL90r4

Novacek · #**216** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Do they know something about I-35 that we don't? :O

I think they know what we all know.

1) political posturing aside, something will _have_ to be done about I35 eventually. Won't be next year, may still be 20 years away, but something will happen. 20 years or so is still in the the timeframe this is being designed for.

2) When work is done on I35, they'll at least look at depressing it and potentially capping it. Downtown land is too valuable to avoid at least doing due diligence.

We vs us · #**217** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Do they know something about I-35 that we don't? :O

Yep -- very interesting that that limited cut-n-cap makes an appearance in all of their scenarios.

Also interesting: Trinity Street is reserved as a north south transit-only corridor (the blue line), and Cap Metro wants to bring it across the lake on its own dedicated bridge.

chinchaaa · #**218** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 8:03 PM**

Interesting that they show a "high-capacity Blue Line" going down Trinity and across the river on a new bridge. I wonder if that's part of the new proposal that's being worked on? Exciting stuff!

freerover · #**219** Posted **Apr 2, 2019, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

Interesting that they show a "high-capacity Blue Line" going down Trinity and across the river on a new bridge. I wonder if that's part of the new proposal that's being worked on? Exciting stuff!

It has always been a possibility and has been shown as options in the current project connect docs. Cap Metro has ROW at the edge of the statesman property. This convention proposal is a kind of pipe dream that shows what could be if money and politics weren't an issue.

Here is the other side of the bridge:

Novacek · #**220** Posted **May 13, 2019, 6:46 PM**

First steps towards possible expansion seem to be in the next council meeting.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...190523-reg.htm

"Approve resolution related to creating the Palm District Master Plan and Waller Creek District Master Plan, designating the Fifth Street Mexican American Heritage Corridor, negotiating options for public ownership and operation of the Palm School and surrounding site, providing funds for the Rainey Street District Fund, expanding the Austin Convention Center, and creating a Tourism Public Improvement District."

"The City Manager is directed to analyze and recommend a financing plan for a
337 Convention Center expansion as described above."