Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trinity River Vision

Panther Island Redevelopment North Side Flood Control Infrastructure

  • Please log in to reply
977 replies to this topic

#101 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 12 September 2005 - 11:05 PM

Yes, a freeway in downtown Boston is probably necessary to help traffic, but burying the freeway, as I understand it, had more of an aesthetic goal than a practical one, because it would have been WAY cheaper to expand the elevated freeway than dig a new one.


Now, I hope you are in bed Johnny.

Boston usually gets buried in snow and ice approx. 25% of the year. That can take a toll on the local, regional, and even national economy. It makes sense to have it constructed near Logan IA and DTBos. This ensures access in/out of CBD area(s), all while collecting voluntary road taxes (toll feel/airport access). This also allows the salt trucks and emergency vehicles to operate in much needed residential urban areas. The centralized section of that particular piece of highway was prone to some of the highest numbers of motor accidents in the country. It was built in the late 50's and meant for traffic flows of about a third of it's present rate. I've driven parts of it it, it makes perfect sense and justifies the price tag for that area's market. I mean, have you seen the housing market out there lately? B)

Very nice, Tha DIG
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#102 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 13 September 2005 - 10:01 AM

Whoa, Safly! Boston does not suffer snow and ice 25% of the year! A few days here and there and it's generally snow that the sand/salt trucks handle within hours. That city is not generally crippled by ice storms as we are---so the point was that they could have done elevated freeways at a tiny fraction of the price of burying them-hence the comparison to the TRV. Again, that was federal pork, and you can believe that the elder senator from MA has a lot to do with how they got it!

Okay, the "cheap" alternative still leaves levees in place. And yes, the Corps recognized the risk of the levees in NOLA just as they recognize the risk in FW. Since the levees were built, the amount of construction does not allow for surface water absorption at the rate when the levee were originally concieved. Hence with the type of rains that flooded FW in 49, the levees would breach and we would see a catastrophic flood.

Granted the TRV is a much more expensive option but Safly you make a chicken and egg argument: why give it to a city whose tourism numbers are not the same as SA? Maybe because "if it's built, then they will come?" Maybe because we are the fastest growing city of our size? Maybe because, like a lot of other cities that turned their backs to their own waterfronts, it is time to recognize that's the reason this city is here in the first place? Not only would we get the needed flood control, but we would also get an incredible attraction for the inner city. Did Baltimore not get some federal funds for the clean up of the Inner Harbor? What about Portland, Seattle and San Diego? I would bet that nearly every city that did a waterfront clean up got some amount of federal funds to move their projects forward.

As for the level, Greg, I am positive. However, if you look at the slope of most of the shoreline above Nutt dam, the 12 foot rise will not overtake much. In addition, if you look at the model, you will see how much of the shore is sculpted to accomodate the water's new level.

Lastly, I think the TIF model for financing the TRV is quite conservative. It does not even take into account potential development on the south and east side of the river---some of which could happen now, before the levees come down. This condition particularly exists north on Samuels across from Lagrave field where the ground is high. That whole area is included in the TIF boundary, but not in the TIF numbers that I have seen.

#103 DrkLts

DrkLts

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Fort Worth

Posted 13 September 2005 - 11:23 AM

^^^ I agree with your 1st sentence, I know someone from the Boston area and it aint that bad 25% of the time

#104 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 13 September 2005 - 01:43 PM

Whoa, Safly! Boston does not suffer snow and ice 25% of the year!


SERIOUSLY SAFLY! How stupid of you. The figure is more like.......23.79%. I've lived there, and it is often worse. You can pretty much bet that on average, Boston will be under a blanket of snow (and often ice) from mid December (often Thanksgiving) through mid March (sometimes to the first week of April). I don't know about the rest of you guys' math, but mine tells me that that constitutes roughly 3 months which is about 25% of a calendar year.

#105 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 13 September 2005 - 02:33 PM

YES!

The Yoss comes through in the clutch. BOOOOYAHHH! :)

So what is your argument on the BOS DIG pork, Yoss?

Yes, the savvy elder senator from Boston would have had something to do about it. I'm sure he along with many of other wealthy constituents just got tired of the traffic headin into Martha's Vineyards. ;)

The DIG was again, necessary. It is a traffic solution. The TRV is a project to perhaps bring in more eceonomic stimulation, but does FW alone have such a miserable GDP or overall tax revenue for it's size. The whole build it and they will come will have quite a burden left on the shoulders of your great grandchildren to pay off. FW will not all of a sudden be THE destination of choice by visitors and businesses amongst all of whatever else the DFW metroplex has to offer, just because we got ourselves a huge waterin hole that will take about 20 + years to finish. The DIG didn't even gaurantee added tourism as an incentive, it's Beantown and it will ALWAYS be a destination. As for the "riverwalk" scale, I just think that the smaller and more intimate it is built, the more it would make economical and aesthetic sense.

Granted the TRV is a much more expensive option but Safly you make a chicken and egg argument: why give it to a city whose tourism numbers are not the same as SA? Maybe because "if it's built, then they will come?" Maybe because we are the fastest growing city of our size? Maybe because, like a lot of other cities that turned their backs to their own waterfronts, it is time to recognize that's the reason this city is here in the first place?



That's alot of MAYBES to be deemed "porkable". In fact with all those MAYBES, MAYBE that would aide in scrutinizing the funding of the project. We can take a look at Las Colinas version of the riverwalk and even that size is not attracting huge numbers from both visitors and businesses alike. The "if they build it they will come" argument is too far a stretch for something these city leaders no little about. And this waterfront is not the sole reason this city exists, it helped but it is not the only reason. We gotta protect ourselves from them injuns! That is why FW existed. We've already turned our backs to the waterfront as a city, have you seen the pollution in there these last 4 years? ;)
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#106 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 13 September 2005 - 05:25 PM

-so the point was that they could have done elevated freeways at a tiny fraction of the price of burying them-hence the comparison to the TRV. Again, that was federal pork, and you can believe that the elder senator from MA has a lot to do with how they got it!

View Post

Safly, that was my point. Thanks redhead.

#107 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 13 September 2005 - 08:02 PM

David, the dumping issue you speak of sounds like a case over in Dallas where a porta-potty company was emptying its trucks directly into a stream. One of the ace investigative news reporters got some good footage of it as well as taking water samples that tested positive raw sewage (kind of obvious when the TP is still swirling around in the sample). I'm pretty sure the TCEQ ripped that company a new hole, but I can't find any information yet on the internet after a brief search.

As for the TRV, I like the proposed results, but I do not like the price tag and I am especially incensed at the plan to seize private property that would likely end up benefitting other private parties. Eminent domain should be used for public benefit and I don't think waterfront land development is public benefit. I don't know why we abandoned the previous Corp solution (well, yes I do, but it ain't right).
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#108 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 13 September 2005 - 08:33 PM

Yes, a freeway in downtown Boston is probably necessary to help traffic, but burying the freeway, as I understand it, had more of an aesthetic goal than a practical one, because it would have been WAY cheaper to expand the elevated freeway than dig a new one.


Johnny, again. Why would you get billions of dollars in Fed Funding to widen or extend the existing highway infrastructure, when you can maximize the efforts of gaining those Fed Funds to further maximize the utilization of a new, improved, and cutting edge tunnel system that will withstand the inherent thresholds of Boston traffic for generations to come? Pork for the good of the people is not at all bad when you compare it to the TRV's proposal. It was absolutely the best idea for a newly improved highway network for that immediate Boston area. Without a doubt.

IMHO pouring a billion dollars into a raised highway system in one of the coldest most populated (residential and commuter) traffic areas in the country was NEVER an option. Perfect sense for Texas, but not Mass. Have you seen the mess that those expanded/elevated highway systems make in places like L.A., Houston, and Dallas?

Check out this article mentioning the latest TECHNOLGY and new standards associated witht the Big Dig. C.I.O. archive

Pretty awesome feats.

Again, that was federal pork, and you can believe that the elder senator from MA has a lot to do with how they got it!


It was actually a huge bi-partisan effort. In fact Tip O'Neil, Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz were quite instrumental in it's creations. Remember, the Big Dig's budget was about to unfold under the GOP's watch.

Interesting article: Oversight?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#109 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 15 September 2005 - 09:39 AM

So what is your argument on the BOS DIG pork, Yoss?


Torn/Mixed. The bad faith created in the 50's with the residents of the North End (an eminent domain argument of all things) plus the literal cutting of a neighborhood in two in order to create what was Boston's other green monster guaranteed that expanding it as an elevated roadway was going to be costly in money and in time; time really being the critical element in that the structure was clogged pretty much ten hours a day strait with traffic and the structure itself was starting to degrade. I cannot tell you how alarming it is to be stuck in traffic at a standstill waiting to exit to the Callahan over to Logan and noticing that some of the support beams have been recently re-riveted/welded.

That said, the entire Big Dig operation has been woefully under planned and overspent. Why? I would suspect a range of answers from poor management to a certain amount of corruption. Pretty par for the course in Boston.

It will be nice to be able to walk from Quincy Mkt to the North End without having to negotiate all the traffic and steel jungle under the old monster but I really think that better effective management (like the feds turning off the spigot after $10 bil.) would have gotten the project completed sooner and more efficiently. This is definitely a poster child for the adage that a project's complexity, size, and time to complete will expand to accommodate the dollars allotted to it.

#110 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 15 September 2005 - 01:45 PM

Yoss, you make the point: is IS nice to walk from Quincy Market to North End without the green monster--ergo it was predominately for the aesthetics, not the functionality. The weather in Boston is cold but it's no MSP with subzero temps. I lived there and officed at Long Wharf right next to the Marriott and across the street from Fanueil Hall. (YEARS ago!), but the point is still the same: the projject was no more sold as a traffic solution than TRV is being sold as a flood control project---but not with a 14 BILLION DOLLAR pricetag and no where near the type of ED displacement that Boston endured.

#111 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 15 September 2005 - 02:53 PM

RRRRRRRRRghhhhhhh! :lol:

YOSS! How could you? Et tu Yoss? Et tu?

(SAFLY stumbling down a 100 foot marble staircase)
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#112 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 07:24 AM

How could you? Et tu Yoss? Et tu?


Pipe down Ceasar. My blade is still sheathed. I suppose I am somewhat neutral on the whole thing. I certainly agreed with the argument in the early 80's that expansion was not a viable option. OTOH, the egregious overruns in budget AND time (to some degree it became a MASSPort jobs program) that ensued certainly ran counter to my support for ANY public project. In all honesty, the last time I was in Boston was about 8 years ago and the project was supposed to have been completed by then but the only aspect that was definitely open was only one part of the Ted Williams tunnel. Now that it is supposedly complete, I have no experience re. the new system, but logic would dictate that it most certainly would have to provide better traffic flow than what it replaced. My guess is that the success of the decision regardless of the dollar cost is really going to be realized whether positive or negative at least a quarter century down the road. The same could be said about the TRV, but DFW's scope and size were criticized in the mid 60's and I think most would agree that 30 years in retrospect, its cost and scope has certainly paid off (absent Term D/Skylink - that is going to require some more time).

#113 double

double

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 04 October 2005 - 04:43 PM

This may have been addressed earlier in the thread, but what is keeping FW from developing the riverfront without the bypass channel, the lake, etc.? Is there a cheaper alternative that allows for similar development at a cheaper price without the massive land grab? I suspect that the removal of the levees made possible by the massive flood control measures is key to the success of the current TRV, but I'm no expert or engineer.


This is an excellent question, which I notice that no one tried to answer. (sorry to digress away from a discussion of the big dig...)

I believe that, when asked, everyone involved with this project will admit that there is no guarantee that anything past the bypass channel will happen. The rest is pure speculation.

I haven't heard or read that anyone did any kind of "market research" to try and determine what factors are inhibiting development or re-development in that area. Admittedly, the river bypass would provide a unique environment and would probably spur some growth in that area, but it still a gamble with taxpayer money. Is it a gamble, too, with flood control? Will it really work?

#114 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:04 PM

I haven't heard or read that anyone did any kind of "market research"

B)
Did you say, "Research" and refer to Fort Worth's public sector?
B)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Look, in Fort Worth research is done successfully at TCU, at Lockheed Martin, at Bell Helicopter, at American Airlines, and at some other places. It is done unsuccessfully at Pier One (in terms of advertising and merchandising) and at some other places.

The City of Fort Worth, in recent memory, has done one research effort. It was so badly designed that it gave us the current garbage pickup policy. Details can be provided separately upon request.

The Trinity River Hallucination is another in a long series of projects justified on the basis of who supports them. We do not let things like research become involved, for research may reveal inconvenient facts.

#115 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 05 October 2005 - 10:08 AM

My my, we are cynical today...or yesterday, or maybe every day?

#116 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2005 - 11:22 AM

Every day, as appropriate.

But thanks for noticing!
B)

#117 double

double

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 05 October 2005 - 02:16 PM

Did you say, "Research" and refer to Fort Worth's public sector?


Uh, no, I don't think I did refer to FW's public sector. However, as I recall from the convention center hotel issue, the City will hire an outside consultant when they think they need some issue researched. The consultant is usually someone who has helped one or more of the Councilmembers get elected (though I don't think that was true for the consultant who did the research for the garbage collection policy).

In any case, the point is not who does the research, but that no one's done any research. And promising a great new neighborhood is the same pie in the sky mentality that had the people of Dallas thinking that if they paid for a new basketball/hockey arena that a whole lot of new wonderful development would pop up around it. It irritates me that some "artist's conception" of the Trinity River channel is being used to illustrate the result of the bypass, as was posted earlier in this thread. What ought to be used instead is an arial photograph which has been modified to insert the new channel and to replace all the nearby businesses with empty lots. That would give a true picture of what the result of this project will look like. Not even park land, just a bunch of streets criss-crossing through a bunch of nothing with a big creek nearby.

#118 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2005 - 02:27 PM

Posted on Wed, Oct. 05, 2005
City to get $1.5 million for Trinity River Vision
By Anna M. Tinsley
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - City leaders got a $1.5 million boost for the Trinity River Vision this week, with two federal grants geared to help buy property and fund preliminary design work.

City Council members unanimously accepted the two grants Tuesday from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"This indicates the council's ongoing support for the most significant project it has seen in a good part of its history," Mayor Mike Moncrief said. "The city has taken ownership of this project.

"It will bring economic development, property enhancement and activity along the riverfront and waterways."

The plan, adopted by the council in 2003, calls for rerouting the Trinity River through a portion of north Fort Worth to enhance flood control and create an urban waterfront around downtown.

Property owners in the area have protested that they will be displaced to make room for high-dollar development.

The city is receiving a $719,200 HUD grant for land acquisition for the Trinity River Vision's urban waterfront project. The Tarrant Regional Water District will use the funds to buy land.

City Planning Director Fernando Costa said he doesn't know which properties will be bought with these funds.

But he said planners cannot go forward with the purchase of properties for the bypass channel until federal environmental clearance of the project comes through. That could come as soon as next month, he said.

The city will also receive $804,735 from HUD for preliminary urban design of the project. That money will be used to contract with the water district for the design plans, according to city records.

"These grants represent progress," Costa said. "The project is ambitious and in the long run will cost much more than the amount of these grants.

"But these are significant steps toward implementing the Trinity River Vision."

#119 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2005 - 07:42 PM

Uh, no, I don't think I did refer to FW's public sector. However, as I recall from the convention center hotel issue, the City will hire an outside consultant when they think they need some issue researched.

I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I mentioned the public sector because that's who is pushing the project. Didn't mean to put words into anyone's post. But my experience is that consultants are hired to validate a point of view, not to do research in the open ended way that is familiar to academics and which might result in an honest evaluation (and possible rejection) of an idea.

#120 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:33 PM

And promising a great new neighborhood is the same pie in the sky mentality that had the people of Dallas thinking that if they paid for a new basketball/hockey arena that a whole lot of new wonderful development would pop up around it.

Um, a whole lot of new, wonderful development has popped up around it...ever heard of Victory?

#121 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 05 October 2005 - 09:42 PM

Jonny, I think Double is referring to the implications that the new development in Dallas would "pop up overnight" after the AA Center started construction. Instead, the development took more than five years after ground breaking and four years after opening to get to the point where we are now with several buildings in the surrounding development under construction. Until last year, all of those blocks around the arena stood vacant.

#122 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 06 October 2005 - 05:51 AM

But John, you of all people know how long it takes for a project of that magnitude to get going. Even if they were in architecture as the AA Center was under construction, that can take more than a year. Then agreements with the city to move utilities can take another year OR MORE if the city is the one responsible for the improvements...they could be two years into the concept and ground would not be scratched. Add to that the legal for partnership docs, financing and the like....then they could wait nine months for a permit of that size...ok, three years has passed and still nothing visible...In the case of Victory, it was about as "overnight" as it can for a project of that size.

#123 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 06 October 2005 - 06:05 AM

Redhead, I'm fully aware that the actual development of Victory has occurred quickly after the AA Center's opening, I was just trying to put it into the perspective that the general public thinks that development should come very quickly, when in reality, it takes many years to get projects into the actual construction phase.

#124 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,383 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:18 AM

11 years and still counting for the Ballpark in Arlington. But, hey, that football stadium and it's 10 or so games a year are gonna fix all that.

#125 double

double

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 01:51 PM

Um, a whole lot of new, wonderful development has popped up around it...ever heard of Victory?

Actually, I hadn't been keeping up with what's happening over there, not that the website you pointed me to has much information on it - mostly "artist's conceptions"... maybe the Ballpark in Arlington would have been a better example. In any case, thanks to John for helping me somewhat explain my remarks. But not only does the public sometimes have the wrong perception about how much time new development requires, I'm saying that the public is purposely lead to believe that there are other developments just "waiting in line". The TV news broadcasts are particularly bad about aiding this perception because they love the graphics.

#126 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth Denton Co.Tx. The new Fort Worth

Posted 06 October 2005 - 06:01 PM


Um, a whole lot of new, wonderful development has popped up around it...ever heard of Victory?

Actually, I hadn't been keeping up with what's happening over there, not that the website you pointed me to has much information on it - mostly "artist's conceptions"... maybe the Ballpark in Arlington would have been a better example. In any case, thanks to John for helping me somewhat explain my remarks. But not only does the public sometimes have the wrong perception about how much time new development requires, I'm saying that the public is purposely lead to believe that there are other developments just "waiting in line". The TV news broadcasts are particularly bad about aiding this perception because they love the graphics.



It will be fun too see how Fort Worth may be shown during home games in Arlington .Most of all Monday night they always show the host city during home games as they do a fly over.

In Irving they would show Downtown Dallas.Now Fort Worth will be lot closer to the home games than Dallas.

#127 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:31 PM

They will still probably show downtown Dallas; afterall, they are the Dallas Cowboys.

#128 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 03 December 2005 - 10:58 AM

To bring this thread back from the dead...

Corps approval expected

By SCOTT STREATER

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER


The sweeping Trinity Uptown project is expected to clear the last major regulatory hurdle this month, allowing construction to begin next year.

This month, the Army Corps of Engineers is expected to unveil the results of its years-long study of the $435 million project, which would rechannel the Trinity River north of downtown to increase flood protection and promote economic redevelopment.

Project supporters expect the corps' environmental impact statement to recommend that the project be built.

"We are very much looking forward to getting the project moving," said Jim Oliver, general manager of the Tarrant Regional Water District, which is spearheading the project.

The Trinity Uptown project, meanwhile, continues to receive federal money.

Congress approved two bills last month that earmarked $7.8 million for design and construction work and for trails associated with the development. That follows congressional approval in July of a transportation bill that included $12.8 million for construction and design of two bridges.

The project's price tag will be split evenly among federal appropriations and local funding sources.

Trinity Uptown is among the largest proposed developments in Fort Worth since Dallas/Fort Worth Airport was built during the early 1970s.

Project supporters say it would revitalize what some call an aging strip of businesses along North Main Street, attracting an estimated $1 billion in development. Rechanneling the river would create two islands and a 33-acre lake north of downtown. Planners envision upscale condominiums, parks and restaurants, with the river as the centerpiece.

Planners say the project's chief aim, however, is to prevent a rare catastrophic flood by replacing the levee system, which has protected Fort Worth for decades. The replacement would be a 1 1/2 -mile-long bypass channel to carry floodwaters away from downtown.

But the channel would cut through existing businesses, requiring more than 80 business owners to sell and move.

Brad Williams, co-owner of Omaha Surplus on White Settlement Road, is among them. Like other affected business owners, he feels that he was left out of the decision-making that could uproot his company from its home of 42 years.

Further angering people such as Williams is that the corps had developed a much-cheaper alternative to Trinity Uptown that would have restored adequate flood protection without relocating businesses.

Project backers rejected that alternative because they want to remove the earthen levees that have long obscured river views.

-------------------------------

Awesome! Construction will likely start next year! I wonder if actual, tangible construction would convince developers who have been holding back on central Fort Worth that there is a big quality of life boost on the way. Time will tell...


Then we have Picht running for office again. wacko.gif

Picht plans to seek seat on board

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER


FORT WORTH - FORT WORTH -- "Landslide Clyde" is back.

Former City Councilman Clyde Picht, who left the council this summer after four terms to spend time with his family and to travel, announced his candidacy Friday for the Tarrant Regional Water District Board. The board has drawn attention recently as a key agency coordinating the vast $435 million Trinity River Vision project, which envisions rerouting the river through north Fort Worth to promote economic development and increase flood protection. One part of the plan, Trinity River Uptown, would create an urban waterfront around downtown.

"I don't have a problem with the Trinity River Vision as an 80-mile vision to improve the river," said Picht, who was nicknamed "Landslide Clyde" after winning a council seat by 10 votes in 1997. "But when you talk about Trinity Uptown ... I want to be sure the public is getting its money's worth.

"We know what's required for flood control for the Trinity River Vision, and it doesn't require a $435-million expenditure."

Two board seats will be on the May 13 ballot, one held by Director Gina Puente-Brancato and one that board President George Shannon held until he died last month. Board members serve four-year terms and are paid $150 for each day of service up to $7,200 a year, said Jim Oliver, general manager of the water district.

Shannon's seat remains vacant, although board members could appoint a replacement to serve until May, Oliver said.

No filings have been submitted to the water district. The filing period runs until March 13, Oliver said.

Picht, 72, said he plans to continue traveling and spending time with his family. The once-a-month water district meetings would give him time to continue doing that, unlike the once-a-week council meetings, he said.

"We have some critical water issues ahead of us," he said. "We need to look seriously at increasing water capacity, storage ... and capitalizing on the lakes too."

------------------------------------

All I can say is that I hope he doesn't screw this up for Fort Worth.



#129 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 03 December 2005 - 11:41 AM

Well put, Johnny, and I can say that there are many, many people who share your sentiment!!

#130 Sam Alcorn

Sam Alcorn

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Denver (but grew up in Fort Worth)

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:00 PM

Sad to hear Omaha Surplus, where I spent so much time as a kid, must go. I guess Angelo's will be on the waterfront, now. That'll be weird. The timeline on the FW Planning website says bridges start going up this year (2006). Has anyone seen any signs of construction for any of the bridges? Has anyone seen renderings of bridge designs, especially the Main St. bridge?

Also, BTW, would this thread fit better under Urban Design/Planning?

#131 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:14 PM

A vote for JD Granger would insure that "Landslide Clyde" will not have the opportunity to screw it up!

#132 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 04 January 2006 - 02:24 AM

Granger? As in DFW GRANGER? How would that ENSURE?

Who is JD Granger?

HOW POWERFUL IS this TRWD? devil.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#133 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 04 January 2006 - 01:01 PM

QUOTE(Sam Alcorn @ Jan 3 2006, 08:00 PM) View Post

Also, BTW, would this thread fit better under Urban Design/Planning?

It fits fine here too, the project is also meant for flood control, which would fall under civic.

#134 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:02 PM

Certainly Clyde will work to oppose this incredible pork, so those who hope to profit from federal waste had better get to work!

#135 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 04 January 2006 - 10:46 PM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Jan 4 2006, 08:02 PM) View Post

Certainly Clyde will work to oppose this incredible pork, so those who hope to profit from federal waste had better get to work!


How effective will he be? Filing closes in March and the election won't be until what, May? I thought some of the construction will be well underway by then or at least moneys appropriated and contracts signed. If the momentum is underway, what will he be able to do to stop it? Is this a strawhorse for him to raise support and then after elected say, well it was too late?

Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#136 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 05 January 2006 - 08:27 AM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Jan 4 2006, 08:02 PM) View Post

Certainly Clyde will work to oppose this incredible pork, so those who hope to profit from federal waste had better get to work!


I'm opposed to almost all forms of political pork outside of Tarrant county.

#137 grow_smart

grow_smart

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Location:FTW Original Town

Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:17 PM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Jan 4 2006, 06:02 PM) View Post

Certainly Clyde will work to oppose this incredible pork, so those who hope to profit from federal waste had better get to work!


So what projects did he support when he was on council? Did he oppose Southwest Parkway or favor it? Was he against subsidizing downtown development?

#138 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 02:55 PM

If he's elected, he'll lose all his votes 4-1 just like on City Council.


#139 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,383 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 05 January 2006 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE(grow_smart @ Jan 5 2006, 01:17 PM) View Post

Did he oppose Southwest Parkway or favor it?


I believe he supported it to the point that he mocked those who opposed it with the argument that it encouraged sprawl. If I remember right, he had a parody up on his website that proposed using the money earmarked for the Parkway to build the "Fort Worth Moat" around the city to keep out the evil suburbanites.

#140 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 05 January 2006 - 08:19 PM

Great, so Clyde is another guy who developed all his urban planning sensibilities in the 1950s and 60s and has ignored all modern advancements in how to design cities??

It appears that the cant-teach-an-old-dog-new-tricks saying holds true when it comes to some of our local politicians. I sometimes think Councilman Chuck Silcox is kidding when I hear him speak. He is truly a fossil - a throwback to the 1950s, who would have no problem sheparding Fort Worth into further sprawl and suburban mediocrity. I truly wish he would retire and allow a more enlightened member of the community to take his place.

#141 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,542 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 05 January 2006 - 10:34 PM

"Did he oppose Southwest Parkway or favor it?"

"I believe he supported it to the point that he mocked those who opposed it with the argument that it encouraged sprawl. If I remember right, he had a parody up on his website that proposed using the money earmarked for the Parkway to build the "Fort Worth Moat" around the city to keep out the evil suburbanites."

I suppose these guys are not aware that the greenbelt "moat" put around Portland OR was an integral part of the plan that has made that city one of America's most liveable (after DTFW of course).

#142 Redshirt

Redshirt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hurlburt Field, FL
  • Interests:I am and always will be a Texas resident. I was born and raised in Fort Worth. Currently, I am in the Air Force working on the CV-22 Osprey, supporting the Fort Worth economy by working on those Bell heliplanes. :) I am currently stationed at Hurlburt Field home of the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Posted 17 January 2006 - 03:02 PM

Posted on Tue, Jan. 17, 2006
Federal officials approve Trinity Uptown Project
By SCOTT STREATER
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
FORT WORTH ó Federal regulators have cleared the way for construction to begin on the sweeping Trinity Uptown project as early as this year.

The Army Corps of Engineers, after more than two years of studying the proposal to rechannel the Trinity River north of downtown to improve flood protection and spark development, announced Tuesday it has formally approved the project to move forward.

The corpsí approval, included in a 298-page study called a final Environmental Impact Statement, is the last major regulatory hurdle to be cleared before construction can begin on the estimated $435 million project. The study will be formally approved after a 30-day public review period.

In recommending Trinity Uptown move forward, the corpsí study concludes that the Trinity Uptown project "robustly addresses" flood-protection concerns as well as economic development issues north of downtown in a way thatís "technically sound and environmentally acceptable."

"Weíre glad the project is progressing along, pretty much at the schedule we were hoping for," said Jim Oliver , general manager of the Tarrant Regional Water District, which is spearheading the project.

But some 80 or so business owners will be forced to sell all or part of their properties and relocate their businesses. Thatís because the project includes a 1 1/2-mile-long bypass channel to carry floodwaters away from downtown that will cut through the businesses, some of which have been at their present locations north of downtown for decades.

Some of these business owners said they feel the project has been rammed down their throats.

"Iím excited about the project. I think itís cool. Itís just a shame that they didnít have enough respect for us to include us in the planning process," said Brad Williams , whose Omaha Surplus will have to move after 43 years on White Settlement Road. "But we were told we were in the way and would have to leave at a price to be negotiated later."

#143 staplesla

staplesla

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 17 January 2006 - 04:02 PM

Exciting news! Any ideas on when redevelopment will actually begin?

#144 Redshirt

Redshirt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hurlburt Field, FL
  • Interests:I am and always will be a Texas resident. I was born and raised in Fort Worth. Currently, I am in the Air Force working on the CV-22 Osprey, supporting the Fort Worth economy by working on those Bell heliplanes. :) I am currently stationed at Hurlburt Field home of the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Posted 17 January 2006 - 04:19 PM

You can check out the Trinity River Vision web site for that kind of information, unless someone out there has insider info on that.

#145 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 17 January 2006 - 10:14 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Jan 5 2006, 12:46 AM) View Post

...Filing closes in March and the election won't be until what, May? I thought some of the construction will be well underway by then or at least moneys appropriated and contracts signed.....



So like I said, since the construction is so soon to start, what can Picht do to stop it? Seems like any claims by Picht to try to rein in this project are a strawhorse to help his election.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#146 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 17 January 2006 - 10:31 PM

so if im reading right they are going to take down all of the dirt levees?? That will creat alot of river front properties around here....can they do that and still keep the flooding under control?

#147 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 17 January 2006 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE
Environmental Impact Statement, is the last major regulatory hurdle to be cleared before construction can begin on the estimated $435 million project
What about financial hurdles? Is this pig trough funded? (not that I have an opinion about it or anything)

#148 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 17 January 2006 - 11:07 PM

QUOTE(courtnie @ Jan 17 2006, 10:31 PM) View Post

so if im reading right they are going to take down all of the dirt levees?? That will creat alot of river front properties around here....can they do that and still keep the flooding under control?


Not all of the dirt levees are going away. I think all of the diversion channel will continue to have them. Only the sections of the river along the bend will have them removed. Even at that, a lot of river front property will open up.


#149 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2006 - 05:08 AM

There is a large surge capacity to be developed upstream (just down the hill from Rivercrest) that will reserve a lot of acreage. It would assist in flood management by catching a lot of a water surge and holding it until the downstream levels (i.e. near downtown) drop enough ot accomodate it.

Sure hope the town tank can be kept full during a drought, though. We seem to have them now and then (more often than floods). It would be a shame if the hundreds of thousands attracted to the area had to keep their paddle boats parked and just gaze out over mud flats.

#150 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fort Worth Texas
  • Interests:History, Historic Preservation, Art, Antiques

Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:12 AM

So that makes me think that my area will not become river front? or will it since they are doing to be doing alot of work on the bridge on whitesettlement road where the overflow land has always been over by montecello. I wish they would publish something showing what levees will be removed and which ones wont...





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Panther Island, Redevelopment, North Side, Flood Control, Infrastructure

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users