Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trinity River Vision

Panther Island Redevelopment North Side Flood Control Infrastructure

  • Please log in to reply
972 replies to this topic

#151 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:49 AM

Here is a before/ after comparision. Original image couresty of Google Earth satellite view. The right side is from the Trinity River site. Seeing both here in this thread makes it easier for discussion.

Dave

IPB Image

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#152 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 18 January 2006 - 02:11 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>
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#153 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 January 2006 - 07:59 PM

I still cant really tell from the maps if my area will be affected..i cant see how it wont be...im very close to the river and where they are taking out omahas and teague that is going to bring the water closer to university dr. Thats ALOT of land and businesses and im assuming that will be the area where the lake will come over some? What about the over flow land on white settlement road right before you cross the river again and before isabel street? that was listed as land they were going to do something with? does anyone have any ideas as to what they are going to do? This concerns be a bit because if they take down the levees right behind my house then im going to be really concerned about a. flooding b. eminate domain...any thoughts? Im excited that they are going to revitalize a part of the city that is very beautiful but what about the effects of what they are doing for the people in the general area? this is an area know for flooding...when we have rain that is...isnt that part of the reason we have benbrook lake????

#154 David Love

David Love
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:28 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Jan 18 2006, 02:11 PM) View Post

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 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:35 PM

This is just as effective for those who understand HTML. I was worried about using the > and <, but it seems not to mind.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#156 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:37 PM

The big lie is still the lake. It's not a lake. Look at the size of it. The renderings show boat slips but a boat of any size above a canoe can't even turn around on the lake and there is no route to other bodies of water.

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 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 January 2006 - 09:57 PM

QUOTE
The big lie is still the lake. It's not a lake. Look at the size of it. The renderings show boat slips but a boat of any size above a canoe can't even turn around on the lake and there is no route to other bodies of water.



I think by "boats" they most likely intend for the use of.... RC Boats? dry.gif

Then of course you will have to get them at RS. rotflmao.gif

How pleasant.
IPB Image


Out of the BAG and SAILING, BABY!

A $200 million RC BOAT Lake/ Stockyards "DIPPING" Creek.

Yea, that will draw em in to COWTOWN. biggrin.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#158 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 January 2006 - 10:13 PM

yeah and exactly WHY are we docking the boats at the new site for TCC????? is that gonna be the only way to get to school????? rotflmao.gif I thought we were suppost to be the big city with the small town feel? right?? or are we now trying for the whole water front thing cause it works for other cities.........

#159 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:09 PM

TCC.

The Ivy League of the South? dry.gif

Crew Baby! Crew!
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#160 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2006 - 05:28 AM

According to the mother of a member of the Andover Crew, the lake will not be large enough for that, either.

But RC Boats?... what's good enough for Central Park is good enough for us. Besides, we have more breeze than NYC!

#161 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:59 PM

Kay Granger's son has been hired to oversee the project. Below is a link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article.

http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13994301.htm

#162 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,326 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:34 PM

Anyone else find this comment from Clyde Picht a little goofy?

“His knowledge of water district affairs is certainly more limited than most people,” Picht said.

#163 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2006 - 07:04 AM

I've generally known Clyde to speak with accuracy and with wit. This would appear to fit the bill on wit, but considering the general lack of knowledge of the water district I don't see how anyone could have a more limited view than "most people."

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 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:47 AM

What is EVEN more pathetic is that KG has the GALL to blast others on the airwaves with an "ethics challenging" campaign commercial. Very concerning.

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". wink.gif

Clyde knows what he is talking about, but what counts is if WE know what he is talking about.
huh.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#165 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:43 AM

Gosh.

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 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 03 March 2006 - 10:59 AM

Yeah Buddy. Giving examples of how our CC votes really puts things in perspective. dry.gif

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
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#167 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 10 April 2006 - 12:52 PM

Good article in favor of Trinity Uptown in the paper by Mitchell Schnurman.

Only thing to fear is fear of failure

QUOTE
How can Fort Worth not dare to reach for something great?

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.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#168 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 10 April 2006 - 01:01 PM

It's an okay article. I'm not a fan of Mr. Schnurman, though.

#169 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:fort worth

Posted 10 April 2006 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 10 2006, 01:52 PM) View Post

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 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 11 April 2006 - 12:09 AM

So this project, on a county level, will help SOUTHLAKE become even more prosperous? dry.gif

Don't follow.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#171 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 11 April 2006 - 07:30 AM

QUOTE(safly @ Apr 11 2006, 01:09 AM) View Post

So this project, on a county level, will help SOUTHLAKE become even more prosperous? dry.gif

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 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE
One could argue that something this significant in the county's core city is good for the entire county.


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.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#173 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:45 AM

Trinity Uptown gets formal U.S. approval

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.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#174 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:32 AM

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.

#175 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:fort worth

Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:42 PM

An article in the Star Telegram today mentions the well being of cities(metros) dependant on attracting college grads. This is partly what I have in mind.

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 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:47 PM

QUOTE(cberen1 @ Apr 11 2006, 10:32 AM) View Post

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. wacko.gif

#177 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:fort worth

Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:34 PM

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. blink.gif

#178 AdamB

AdamB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Location:Upper West Side
  • Interests:Living in the city

Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:24 AM

QUOTE(Malt @ Apr 12 2006, 12:34 AM) View Post

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. blink.gif



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 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,326 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 12 April 2006 - 09:55 AM

I have no idea or opinion on whether or not that is correct, but do you have any sources to back up that claim?

#180 Nitixope

Nitixope

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:19 PM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Apr 12 2006, 09:24 AM) View Post

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 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 04:16 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.

#182 grow_smart

grow_smart

    Member

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

Posted 12 April 2006 - 07:43 PM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Apr 12 2006, 10:24 AM) View Post


people consume MUCH more water than their yards do. A suburban area is going to use A LOT less water than an urban area.


Umm...yeah...that statement is just plain wrong, period.

#183 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 13 April 2006 - 07:49 AM

QUOTE(AdamB @ Apr 12 2006, 10:24 AM) View Post

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

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2006 - 12:16 PM

Maybe people in the suburbs don't have to bathe as much since they don't encounter other people as often or in as close proximity.

#185 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,326 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 13 April 2006 - 01:22 PM

In a real amateur, quick search yesterday, I only found a document saying that water usage was higher in low density residential areas than high density. Not much more than that.

#186 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:32 PM

Is there going to be a quality, open green space as a part of this?
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 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 17 April 2006 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE(Buck @ Apr 12 2006, 05:16 PM) View Post

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 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 18 April 2006 - 02:14 PM

True, we used Buffalo Grass extensively for the landscaping at the DEA Aviation Center at Alliance Airport. Also the Fort Worth Botanic Garden has a display of drought tolarant Buffalo Grass. This grass is rather expensive.. but its worth it in the long run - little or no maintenance $$.

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

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#189 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 April 2006 - 04:02 PM

Well then, I say BUFFALO GRASS ALL OVER TARRANT COUNTY.

MANDATORY!

Surely a TIF is in order for such a project. wink.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#190 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:fort worth

Posted 19 April 2006 - 09:19 PM

QUOTE(safly @ Apr 18 2006, 05:02 PM) View Post

Well then, I say BUFFALO GRASS ALL OVER TARRANT COUNTY.

MANDATORY!

Surely a TIF is in order for such a project. wink.gif


tax deductible grass, bring it! smile.gif

#191 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 20 April 2006 - 02:25 PM

QUOTE(Urbndwlr @ Apr 17 2006, 05:35 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Buck @ Apr 12 2006, 05:16 PM) View Post

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. unsure.gif

#192 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 20 April 2006 - 05:49 PM

Keller uses the most water per person.

#193 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 20 April 2006 - 10:57 PM

It's good for your skin. huh.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#194 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 22 April 2006 - 06:36 AM

Just curious but do we know when they will start all the construction on the lake? When will the levees start coming down? Are we looking at years?

#195 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 22 April 2006 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 10 2006, 01:52 PM) View Post

Good article in favor of Trinity Uptown in the paper by Mitchell Schnurman.

Only thing to fear is fear of failure

QUOTE
How can Fort Worth not dare to reach for something great?

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 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 22 April 2006 - 02:45 PM

I certainly hope that current national chain restaurants and retail are NOT included in this vision.

If anything, kept to under a 20% occupancy level.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#197 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 22 April 2006 - 09:51 PM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Apr 22 2006, 11:05 AM) View Post


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
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#198 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:fort worth

Posted 23 April 2006 - 12:26 AM

I can understand there being concerns, but the tax base is estimated to increase from $129 million to $1 billion over 40 years. Which is a pretty good return on investment. Folks in Azle can pay less than they otherwise would because there is more tax money coming in due to the TRV. I don't understand the gloom and doom.

http://www.trinityri...org/Funding.asp

#199 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 23 April 2006 - 03:04 PM

Like any construction [read also design +build] project it usually involves scheduled events, advertising, submitting a bid, making selection, award, notice to proceed and a completion date.

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

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#200 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 23 April 2006 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE
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.


Curious. Did you mention the "brick" solution?

huh.gif

Viva Comal Springs! smile.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com





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