Trinity River Vision
#151
Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:49 AM
Dave
- Papaw likes this
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#152
Posted 18 January 2006 - 02:11 PM
Final Environmental Impact Statement
<sarcasm> I just love their progressive outlook on transportation: </sarcasm> "Well, the city has talked about putting in light rail, but right now, mass transit in the area consists of buses and since pretty much everyone in Fort Worth drives cars, we're just gonna put in nice big streets."
<sarcasm> There's some forward looking thinking there! </sarcasm>
#153
Posted 18 January 2006 - 07:59 PM
#154 David Love
Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:28 PM
The report is on the USACE site.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(sarcasm) I just love their progressive outlook on transportation: (/sarcasm) "Well, the city has talked about putting in light rail, but right now, mass transit in the area consists of buses and since pretty much everyone in Fort Worth drives cars, we're just gonna put in nice big streets."
[sarcasm] There's some forward looking thinking there! [/sarcasm]
Some forums have sarcasm tags... just puts the text in yellow with a Sarcasm: in front of the tagged text.
#155
Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:35 PM
#156 ghughes
Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:37 PM
The intellectual dishonesty would be astounding, except I've lived here a few years and I'm getting used to it.
As a reflecting pond for the Radio Shack headquarters, though...
#157
Posted 18 January 2006 - 09:57 PM
I think by "boats" they most likely intend for the use of.... RC Boats?
Then of course you will have to get them at RS.
How pleasant.
Out of the BAG and SAILING, BABY!
A $200 million RC BOAT Lake/ Stockyards "DIPPING" Creek.
Yea, that will draw em in to COWTOWN.
www.iheartfw.com
#158
Posted 18 January 2006 - 10:13 PM
#159
Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:09 PM
The Ivy League of the South?
Crew Baby! Crew!
www.iheartfw.com
#160 ghughes
Posted 19 January 2006 - 05:28 AM
But RC Boats?... what's good enough for Central Park is good enough for us. Besides, we have more breeze than NYC!
#161
Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:59 PM
http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13994301.htm
#162
Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:34 PM
“His knowledge of water district affairs is certainly more limited than most people,” Picht said.
#163 ghughes
Posted 02 March 2006 - 07:04 AM
The fact that Mr. Granger, with no project management experience, is being hired without the job being competed makes it clear that the water district needs a good shake up. I don't know what definition of "corruption" we operate with around here, but I've got a boat-load more PM experience than Mr. Granger and would be happy to apply for a $110k position. Wrong last name, though.
My conclusion is that he will be a figurehead and that the real work will be done elsewhere. Which effectively means our water district funds are being used to indirectly pay off our congresswoman.
This is pathetic.
#164
Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:47 AM
Seriously, WHY is she still in office? What has she been REMOTELY responsible for. And don't tell me the JSF F-22 and all that encompasses the project, that was in the bag long before her high dollar politicizing and "campaigning".
Clyde knows what he is talking about, but what counts is if WE know what he is talking about.
www.iheartfw.com
#165
Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:43 AM
I think Kay's still in office because she promotes major projects that can change the face of downtown Fort Worth and promote new development to the north.
Whether eminent domain should be involved -- and how much landowners should be paid -- are questions for another discussion.
But the Trinity Vision is great.
And it isn't just Kay vs. Clyde. When the City Council voted on the project, the vote was 8-Clyde.
#166
Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:59 AM
It's not the projects that will eventually come our way, it's the funding and the practice that concerns so many.
I am for TRV, but to say that because she is a supporter THAT MUST give her "free reign", is absolutely absurd. Having her son fill in a paying seat with the project is beyond UNUSUAL, it promotes an environment for "conflict of interest".
My question about Kay was a serious one. I really don't know much about her. So please further educate me on Congresswoman Granger and her past politics. More detail please.
This is what I have read up on her so far. Accurate? Kay's Story
www.iheartfw.com
#167
Posted 10 April 2006 - 12:52 PM
Only thing to fear is fear of failure
To alter the course of a river, to try to turn a virtual wasteland into a teeming waterfront, to change the character of its city.
This is the way to think about Trinity Uptown, the $435 million public works project that's been six years in the making - and now faces a referendum in the form of a water board election.
Nice article, but it fails to address why residents in Azle and Lake Worth should be responsible for paying for an economic development project in Fort Worth.
#168
Posted 10 April 2006 - 01:01 PM
#169
Posted 10 April 2006 - 10:01 PM
Nice article, but it fails to address why residents in Azle and Lake Worth should be responsible for paying for an economic development project in Fort Worth.
One could argue that something this significant in the county's core city is good for the entire county. As Fort Worth becomes more prosperous, so do the other cities in the county(Fort Worth being a catalyst).
#170
Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:09 AM
Don't follow.
www.iheartfw.com
#171
Posted 11 April 2006 - 07:30 AM
So this project, on a county level, will help SOUTHLAKE become even more prosperous?
Don't follow.
Well, it stands to reason that if improving the CBD will increase the overall appeal of Ft. Worth to business, Southlake will gain more commuters, along with everyone else. To me it's a big "if", but when it comes to large scale development, I say shoot first and ask questions later.
#172
Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:34 AM
Try telling that to a taxpayer in Azle. I've been to some of the forums out there. They are steaming angry. The city's share of the project is 6%. The county and regional water district are on the hook for 18%, not including lost revenue from the TIF. Why isn't the city paying more of the cost? Why aren't the land developers helping out? If the project is such a benefit, surely they would see the advantages of creating a PID to put their money where their mouth is.
There is also nothing to keep their share of the cost fixed. If the project cost goes up or if the Federal portion gets reassigned to pay for the war or Katrina relief, the local shares of the cost will go up.
#173
Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:45 AM
FORT WORTH - The federal government has formally approved the Trinity Uptown project, freeing planners to begin construction of the ambitious project designed to improve flood control and revitalize the area north of downtown this year.
#174
Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:32 AM
#175
Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:42 PM
Also, attracting businesses that pay higher wages which would not only relocate in Fort Worth's CBD but throughout the area. Increased business activity would spawn the opportunity for additional homegrown businesses. The employees/applicants that will be applying for these new attractive jobs will live in and outside of Fort Worth. My take anyways, I see this as a regional project with Fort Worth paying a larger portion of the cost.
Keep in mind, I live outside of Fort Worth, my opinion is that of a tarrant county resident living outside of Fort Worth in Watauga.
#176
Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:47 PM
For all the people who complain about Fort Worth not doing anything progressive or forward thinking, this should be good news. I still just want to see shovels in the dirt. Hopefully the displaced people will wind up very pleased with what they negotiate for the property.
The anxiety is killing me.
#177
Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:34 PM
The TRWD should take initiative to promote increased urban development to cut down on the use of water on lawns. As further strain is put on the water supply due to increasing population and droughts, this is a major concern for the water supply(overall increased demand taxing supply). With decreased use of water on lawns, the less need for expenses on creating new reservoirs and the piping/pumping to local lakes.
New reservoirs will most likely still be needed in the near future even if all suburban development discontinued and all new development was urban. At least the water demands would be a bit more predictable( can't count on everyone adhearing to water restrictions ). A pipe dream I know.
#178
Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:24 AM
All day I've been trying to recall a water issue that came to mind the other day.
The TRWD should take initiative to promote increased urban development to cut down on the use of water on lawns. As further strain is put on the water supply due to increasing population and droughts, this is a major concern for the water supply(overall increased demand taxing supply). With decreased use of water on lawns, the less need for expenses on creating new reservoirs and the piping/pumping to local lakes.
New reservoirs will most likely still be needed in the near future even if all suburban development discontinued and all new development was urban. At least the water demands would be a bit more predictable( can't count on everyone adhearing to water restrictions ). A pipe dream I know.
people consume MUCH more water than their yards do. A suburban area is going to use A LOT less water than an urban area.
#179
Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:55 AM
#180
Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:19 PM
people consume MUCH more water than their yards do. A suburban area is going to use A LOT less water than an urban area.
Please explain. If that is the case, then why do many of the suburbs especially those with nice houses and well maintained yards impose watering bans during the summer?
#181
Posted 12 April 2006 - 04:16 PM
Suburbs use much more water per person. City folks don't have those lush yards.
#183
Posted 13 April 2006 - 07:49 AM
people consume MUCH more water than their yards do. A suburban area is going to use A LOT less water than an urban area.
True or not, it misses the obvious point that 100 people will probably use the same amount of personal water regardless of where they live. Cutting out 100 yards, however, will inherently reduce overall water usage.
#184 ghughes
Posted 13 April 2006 - 12:16 PM
#185
Posted 13 April 2006 - 01:22 PM
#186
Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:32 PM
In my opinion, the open green space (grass, trees, fields) will be one of the greatest attractions to citizens - as we can really use it - the water would be nice, however the open space is absolutely key to making this a truly great asset for the center city.
Frankly I wouldnt care if this whole project included the canals - all I want is a big, high quality central park. Raising the water level and restoring much of the trees along the river via a slightly higher dam would satisfy me as we'd get a wider, more attractive river.
#187
Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:35 PM
Last I saw, Keller used the most water in the area.
Suburbs use much more water per person. City folks don't have those lush yards.
Correct Buck. Lawns are the largest consumers of water - by far. It is possible for people to grow lawns using Buffalo Grass, though, which doesn't require irrigation - and looks good. Also native shrubs will do the same - its possible to have a lot of lawn and garden land and use very little artificial irrigation.
Some people actually collect rainwater for irrigation - just look it up on the internet - is a good idea.
#188
Posted 18 April 2006 - 02:14 PM
Visit the Botanic Garden Website, then scroll down and find WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN. We took this 360° photo for the City last year. Below the narrative text click on:
'Click here for a 360° view of the water conservation garden'
The patch of grass near the road is Buffalo Grass.
http://www.fwbg.org/gardens.htm
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#189
Posted 18 April 2006 - 04:02 PM
MANDATORY!
Surely a TIF is in order for such a project.
www.iheartfw.com
#191
Posted 20 April 2006 - 02:25 PM
Last I saw, Keller used the most water in the area.
Suburbs use much more water per person. City folks don't have those lush yards.
Correct Buck. Lawns are the largest consumers of water - by far. It is possible for people to grow lawns using Buffalo Grass, though, which doesn't require irrigation - and looks good. Also native shrubs will do the same - its possible to have a lot of lawn and garden land and use very little artificial irrigation.
Some people actually collect rainwater for irrigation - just look it up on the internet - is a good idea.
Yeah, but Keller has only 36K people, so it can't be the largest consumer of water, unless you include the part of Fort Worth that lies in the 76248 zip code.
#192
Posted 20 April 2006 - 05:49 PM
#193
Posted 20 April 2006 - 10:57 PM
www.iheartfw.com
#194
Posted 22 April 2006 - 06:36 AM
#195
Posted 22 April 2006 - 11:05 AM
Good article in favor of Trinity Uptown in the paper by Mitchell Schnurman.
Only thing to fear is fear of failure
To alter the course of a river, to try to turn a virtual wasteland into a teeming waterfront, to change the character of its city.
This is the way to think about Trinity Uptown, the $435 million public works project that's been six years in the making - and now faces a referendum in the form of a water board election.
Nice article, but it fails to address why residents in Azle and Lake Worth should be responsible for paying for an economic development project in Fort Worth.
Same reson Haltom City puts adds in the Dallas Business Journal.Touting that the City of Haltom City is at the center of economic growth because it's inside Downtown Fort Worth, Alliance Airprt, And DFW!
Can we cut Azel and Lake Worth away from the project? If so good. But your question can be asked another way why Fort Worth can't have a project because of every tiny town that stands in it's way.
#196
Posted 22 April 2006 - 02:45 PM
If anything, kept to under a 20% occupancy level.
www.iheartfw.com
#197
Posted 22 April 2006 - 09:51 PM
Same reson Haltom City puts adds in the Dallas Business Journal.Touting that the City of Haltom City is at the center of economic growth because it's inside Downtown Fort Worth, Alliance Airprt, And DFW!
Can we cut Azel and Lake Worth away from the project? If so good. But your question can be asked another way why Fort Worth can't have a project because of every tiny town that stands in it's way.
I don't think the citizens of Azle care whether or not Fort Worth improves its river. They want you to get your hand out of their wallet. As a landowner who has paid a significant amount of taxes this year to the numerous government entities who levy taxes, I have a hard time arguing with them. I would have no problem paying more on my property in the City of Fort Worth since my property will likely appreciate in value from the Trinity Uptown improvements. Fort Worth city council wouldn't make that deal, though - they would be bounced from office.
And it's not just the citizens of northwest Tarrant County cities. There are residents all across Tarrant who are questioning the amount of support that the County has invested in this project, all the while asking for some substantial bond approvals in the next election for basic services that the County is responsible for providing. There are also residents of Fort Worth who are concerned that the city does not have enough money to pay for basic infrastructure improvements, such as crumbling roads and localized drainage issues and should not be spending money on a town lake that benefits wealthy land developers.
This is a great project. Why can't it be done without fleecing the taxpayers? Why can't the developers kick in some of their own money to help pay for it.
Courtnie, the contract for bridge design for the bypass channel was let back in November and an engineering consultant has been selected. Approval by the USACE was given last week and bridge design should start very soon if not already underway. Parcel acquisition should begin in late summer, early fall and clearing will happen soon after that. The bridges on North Main and Jacksboro Highway will be the first signs of new construction.
I am in Austin/NewBraunfels/San Antonio this weekend setting things up for a family reunion in July and picked up some conservation information about the Comal Springs. The flyer said that 25% of water consumption is used for flushing toilets. I think it said 33% was used for irrigating lawns. I don't know how old these stats were or what the metadata is associated with them, though. Marty Martinez mentioned at the last forum that San Antonio Water Utilities was giving away free low-flow toilets. I nodded my head in agreement as I recalled a useful fact I learned right here on the FW Forum. Thanks SAFly.
Again, next forum is Tarrant Hispanic Republican Club - Tuesday, April 25 at 6:30pm at the Luby's on University Park. You all should go. I'll try to post additional forums in the next few days so you might find one you can make time to attend.
Timothy Nold
#198
Posted 23 April 2006 - 12:26 AM
http://www.trinityri...org/Funding.asp
#199
Posted 23 April 2006 - 03:04 PM
Most projects also include some type of progress schedule. That way managers know if the work is ahead or behind schedule.
I would think that all these planned event dates should be public somewhere.
Dave
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#200
Posted 23 April 2006 - 03:33 PM
Curious. Did you mention the "brick" solution?
Viva Comal Springs!
www.iheartfw.com
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Panther Island, Redevelopment, North Side, Flood Control, Infrastructure
Panther Island
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Seco Ventures properties on Panther IslandStarted by Austin55, 31 Jan 2024 Panther Island |
|
|||
Projects and New Construction →
Ideas and Suggestions for Projects →
Caravan of Dreams revival... in the TXU Power PlantStarted by Jeriat, 20 Jan 2021 TXU, Power Plant, Music Hall and 3 more... |
|
|||
Planning →
City Issues →
Poll
First "Uptown" to BE "Uptown"Started by Jeriat, 15 May 2017 Near Southside, West 7th and 5 more... |
|
|||
Panther Island
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Encore Panther Island (Proposed 5 Stories - 233,198 S.F.)Started by renamerusk, 20 Oct 2016 Panther Island |
|
|||
Downtown
Projects and New Construction →
Commercial →
Hilton Hotel Annex SoldStarted by John T Roberts, 23 Sep 2014 Downtown, Redevelopment |
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users