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

#201 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 - 04:15 PM

Actually, we fill 1/2 gallon milk containers with water and place them in the tank as an alternative to the 1.6 gpf (gallons per flush) newer low flow devices.

Hmm maybe we should use 2 - half gallons to displace a full 1 gallon of tank water. As long as the flush cycle performs the function... should work.

Dave

Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#202 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 23 April 2006 - 04:24 PM

Like my Dad said whenever he would work on the toilets at home. As long as it goes down, that's fine with me.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#203 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 April 2006 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 22 2006, 10:51 PM) View Post

Why can't it be done without fleecing the taxpayers?


This isn't fleecing. This brings together a lot of different entities to the benefit of everyone. Municipalities have a limited ability to invest in growth of their tax base. Eventually even the people in Azle will benefit.

#204 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 April 2006 - 10:15 PM

Wow, I suppose our definition of fleecing is different. We will take their money whether they want to pay or not. We will give it to improve property owned by private developers at the expense of other private business owners and the people of Azle will enjoy some fringe, nebulous benefit whether they like it or not. This is why I can't support this project in its current incarnation. The reason that they spread the load over several different agencies is that to do otherwise would have been political suicide.

I do feel that the TRWD Board of Directors election has shaped into a referendum on the project, since the powers that be decided not to get input from the community at large. If the voters send two pro-Trinity Uptown candidates to the board, then I will shut up and look forward to our new wonderful riverfront and all the wonderful development it entails. I'll also be looking for ideas for Azle's new Venice-on-Eagle Mountain Lake project. Only seems fair that we get our own economic development project at taxpayer's expense.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#205 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 25 April 2006 - 07:32 AM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 24 2006, 11:15 PM) View Post

Wow, I suppose our definition of fleecing is different. We will take their money whether they want to pay or not.


Aren't all taxing systems based on this? I don't want to pay for public schools, but I do it anyway. I don't want to subsidize the county hospitla, but I do it. I don't want to bail the city out of the Mercado debacle, but I do it. I don't want to support suburban sprawl, but I do that to. If everyone in the tax base only supported the things they wanted, the group benefit would disappear. I don't see how this is fleecing.

Are you a Libertarian?

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 24 2006, 11:15 PM) View Post

We will give it to improve property owned by private developers at the expense of other private business owners...


the other private business owners will benefit from a liquidation of a non-liquid asset at above market rates. If they play their cards right they will make a bunch of money on the deal.

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 24 2006, 11:15 PM) View Post

and the people of Azle will enjoy some fringe, nebulous benefit whether they like it or not.


The people of Azle will benefit roughly in proportion to their contribution. Azle is going to pick up a very small piece of this bill. You personally are going to contribute how much? $10?, $20?, $30? It just isn't that much money. You'll get your money's worth out of it, if based on nothing else then just on aesthetic improvement to your community.

It seems like your biggest beef is about the lack of choice. Sorry. It's not a democracy. No one gets to vote on everything.

#206 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 25 April 2006 - 08:42 AM

Ah, but we do get to vote. When people think that their elected representatives have done wrong, they get a chance to correct that at the next election.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#207 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 25 April 2006 - 09:36 AM

[quote name='cberen1' date='Apr 25 2006, 08:32 AM' post='25208']

[quote post='25203' date='Apr 24 2006, 11:15 PM' name='AndyN']
We will give it to improve property owned by private developers at the expense of other private business owners...
[/quote]

the other private business owners will benefit from a liquidation of a non-liquid asset at above market rates. If they play their cards right they will make a bunch of money on the deal.


I have never heard of anybody making money in an eminent domain situation. Some of the offers Arlington made to homeowners for the Cowboys stadium were so ridiculous I'd have shot the person making them. When you don't accept an offer you head to court and generally get a better deal but never above market. The folks in New London that got their case to the Supreme Court also reported some incredibly low offers for their property from the city.

I like the idea of the TRV but not forceably taking property to accomplish it. It seems to me if it turns out the way planners think it will eliminate some green space I can see from some of the higher buildings downtown.

The question I have is will all of that development really happen? Some things are happening in DTFW but not at a massive pace. Who will want to develop something uptown? If it is retail where will the customers come from? DTFW? how will they get uptown? It's a long walk, maybe busses or maybe they will drive. I don't think downtown or uptown will ever consistantly attract the masses from the expansion in North Ft Worth, South Ft Worth and West Ft Worth.

Unless there is something unique downtown or uptown they will shop and eat in their own neighborhoods. More people living in DTFW will drive commercial development in the TRV. The sad thing is Ft Worth has proven itself to be an easy touch and developers will want sweeteners from the city to build anything and they will get it, driving up the cost to taxpayers.

As a flood control project I can support taking private property to make the river safer for all. Just take what is needed for flood control and let the current landowners reap the profits when developers make the offers directly to them for their property.

Someone said it would have a $1 Billion dollar taxbase in 40 years. If 10,000 new homes worth only $100,000 were built you would have a billion dollars in new tax base. I don't have the numbers but I'm sure that is only 2-3 years worth of new construction in this town and many are worth more than $100,000.

I don't think it is a good investment if it will take 40 years for the TRV to be worth that much. But, if it does take that long I still may be able to see a lot of greenspace around the new "lake" for a long time to come.

#208 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 25 April 2006 - 10:02 AM

QUOTE(Keller Pirate @ Apr 25 2006, 10:36 AM) View Post

It seems to me if it turns out the way planners think it will eliminate some green space I can see from some of the higher buildings downtown.

Some things are happening in DTFW but not at a massive pace.


There is really a lot of stuff underway downtown and immediately north. Drive around Samuels Ave. and tell me there isn't a lot going on. From my window and I can see the Neil P., T&P, Pecan Place, Cotton Depot, Omni, and the Plaza. These are all bona fide projects where people are investing millions of dollars. Assuming that trinity Bluffs and the TCC campus continue to proceed as planned, that's really quite a bit of development.

Is it "massive"? It probably all depends on your definition of massive. We will have increased the number of residential units in or near the CBD by a factor of 4 or 5 in a period of only 4 or 5 years. To me that's massive. Particularly given the conservative nature of speculative construction in Fort Worth, it's impressive.

My guess is that the development will happen. But it will happen slower than people on this forum think it should. The thing is, there is very little virgin territory to be developed right now this close to downtown. It should be pretty appealing to developers.

#209 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 25 April 2006 - 12:04 PM

As I understand it, the land acquisition will be limited to what is used for the project itself. That is just the new ditch/bypass channel and some road and bridge realignments. The stock tank ("lake") will be so small it will mostly fit within existing boundaries of the levies, which is already publicly owned land.

The land that will be ripe for development will be all that industrial stuff off North main. That's already in private hands (hmmm... wonder whose...).

I think the take from one owner and sell to another is overblown, but still worth watching.

As to making money off the public purchases, that's doubtful. A major challenge is to compensate a business owner for intangibles (good will, location, etc.) because they are difficult to objectively value.

#210 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

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

Posted 25 April 2006 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 24 2006, 11:15 PM) View Post

I'll also be looking for ideas for Azle's new Venice-on-Eagle Mountain Lake project.


If it is solely an economic project, I'll support it if it increases the annual general fund intake for Tarrant County. If the increase revenue is greater than the cost of course.

Don't let that statement confuse my reasoning for backing the TRV. Obvious flood control reasoning, quality of life, dilapidated area rejuvenated, civic pride, recreation destination, tourism attraction, city/county made more attractive for business and college grads, and increased revenue for Tarrant County and the other taxing entities.

#211 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 25 April 2006 - 04:46 PM

From the What its worth segment

Eminate domain concept must be only for the benifit of the general public.

NOT for the benifit of private enterprise.

Yes, I do remember that the Texas Bill for NO ED and TRV was an exception. [not sure if it passed]. Still seams like an ED rip off.

Lost my train of thought here.

Dave


Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#212 Malt

Malt

    Junior Member

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

Posted 25 April 2006 - 04:54 PM

The eminent domain issue is more of an issue than the taxes in my mind.

As far as for myself, I can only say that I do see this as good for the general public and hope that the bare minimum of businesses are displaced and compensated beyond their satisfaction. If these were homes, it would be even more sensitive(TRV possibly wouldn't have even been conceived if homes were in the area).

#213 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 28 April 2006 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE(360texas @ Apr 25 2006, 05:46 PM) View Post

Lost my train of thought here.


Happens to me all


#214 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 29 April 2006 - 03:35 PM

Star Telegram endorses incumbent and former Trinity Uptown TIF chairman.

Great possibilities

Apathetic citizens sometimes explain failing to vote in local elections by saying: "There wasn't anyone worth voting for."

That won't fly in the Tarrant Regional Water District board elections on May 13, for which early voting starts Monday.

The majority of the 13 candidates appear capable of becoming worthy members of the five-member body that oversees the water district. But only the top two vote-getters will be elected...



Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#215 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:24 AM

I could care less about any of the 2 candidates endorsed by some BUSTER (only good for Sunday coupons) of a paper.
Go get em AndyN.
Like Jet Li style in "Unleashed".

Tim Lane as a valid candidate doesn't "hold water". I wouldn't let him oversee how our water is controlled and what gets built up around some amateur ball stadium.

And to endorse a business woman purely based on her hands in the wine industry doesn't validate her as knowing what the Distict means to our future.

QUOTE
She grasps the crucial importance of maintaining an ample long-term water supply through both expanded conservation efforts and developing additional sources of water...


A 5 year old can grasp the crucial importance, but it was never explained to us EXACTLY how those conservation efforts and additional sources will be developed and implemented for our future. And exactly how does FWST make any good judgement based on that lack of experience and planning, and then share it with the rest of us? wacko.gif

Heck, their winery business can't even get their company website up. biggrin.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#216 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:17 AM

Don't be too hard on her SAfly. She is a smart woman who is capable of holding the board position, as are most of the candidates. Her problem is that if she doesn't get knocked out by voter dissatisfaction for her votes in favor of Trinity Uptown, she'll get bumped out by the bigger name supporters of the project who are running to protect Trinity Uptown. I just don't see her holding on to her seat one way or the other.

Timothy Nold
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#217 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 05:32 PM

Voted today.

The incumbent's worst problem is that she is buried at the bottom of a long ballot.



#218 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 18 May 2006 - 11:48 AM

Two pro TRV candidates won Saturday! Im most happy Lane won. smile.gif


IPB Image
[/quote]


#219 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 18 May 2006 - 10:16 PM

Great. Business Flood Insurance on the rise. And guess who pays for that. wink.gif

Where do the Cat's fans park now?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#220 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 20 May 2006 - 09:46 AM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ May 18 2006, 12:48 PM) View Post

Two pro TRV candidates won Saturday!

Good. Now maybe things will progress a little more quickly on the TRV.

Saf, there are 3 garages planned for accross the street from LaGrave. That's where they'll park (and eat and stuff, since there's also retail planned for the same garages.)

#221 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 20 May 2006 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Apr 29 2006, 04:35 PM) View Post

Star Telegram endorses incumbent and former Trinity Uptown TIF chairman.

The majority of the 13 candidates appear capable of becoming worthy members of the five-member body that oversees the water district. But only the top two vote-getters will be elected...[/i]


With the added job of needed water for Gas Drilling .It sounds like the Tarrant Water Board will be very important part of our Local Goverment for now on. It will be like New Yorks Port Authority.

Just like New York. I read to get the Twin Towers built they needed regional authority to get them built. They needed the help of the Governor of New Jersey to get it done! I read how and why. But to say the least it's a pain trying to understand.

#222 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:35 AM


Proposed Trinity Uptown Design Standards


This is an interesting read. Looks like they are planning to incorporate a lot of the standards that forummers support.


QUOTE
Public and private development should strengthen this urban authenticity and should avoid generic quality of conventional development often seen in suburban locations.
laugh.gif


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#223 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 22 June 2006 - 10:41 AM

Kudos to Channel 11 for their coverage of this project. Makes me think they cover Fort Worth better than the other stations.

KTVT Story about Design Standards Meeting
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#224 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 22 June 2006 - 11:23 PM

LOVED the TRV news coverage the other day when they interviewed a local and PROUD FW businessman who will eventually get his establishment CLEARED OUT for a water pathway, which was revised in the TRV 40 something year old Masterplan Design.

That guy was AWESOME, and the TRV-City Council folks should just put their perty lil heads back in tha sand after that clip.

I'd vote him in for mayor in a heartbeat.
And campaign for his cause.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#225 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 23 June 2006 - 08:50 AM

That was kind of a non-sequitor with regard to the guy compliaining about losing his property. The design standards meeting was not about whether or not to take the guy's property. They are trying to establish the proper zoning for the land within the redevelopment area to guide the new development and keep the area from ending up looking like Southlake Town Square. I talked to the guy in the planning department who worked on the recommendations and he said that none of the people who spoke at the meeting had anything to say about the design standards. They were all there to complain about the project and the eminent domain.

I think if you look at the proposed standards, you will see that they are very urban. My only comment would be the auto-centric language that I see in the transportation sections. Even though we are not currently pursuing a rail-transit option, the codes should be crafted with future transit projects in mind. North Main has long been looked at as a corridor for access to the Stockyards area from downtown and the redevelopment should do nothing to adversely affect the eventual construction of a line.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#226 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 23 June 2006 - 06:08 PM

Saw this on the web. I didn't post the whole thing, just down to the part where Cornyn is planning to ban federal funding for state and local projects that include eminent domain. Wonder if he has talked to Kay Granger.

Bush Order Would Limit Property Seizures
By JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered Friday that federal agencies cannot seize private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads. The move occurred on the one-year anniversary of a controversial Supreme Court decision that gave local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes for commercial development.
The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case involving New London, Conn., homeowners limited the homeowners' rights by saying local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was to bring more jobs and tax revenue to a city.

But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit. In a backlash to the decision, many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.

Many conservatives - particularly in the West - see the decision as a dangerous interpretation of the "takings clause" in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to seize property for public use with just compensation. They have argued such takings are an unjustified governmental abuse of individual rights.

Cities, though, backed by some liberals, see the takings power as an important tool for urban renewal projects crucial to revitalizing cities.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, welcomed Bush's executive order. But since the federal government has only a limited role in such projects, he said Congress must do more. Cornyn has introduced legislation that would also bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain.

"The protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and a distinctive aspect of our form of government," Cornyn said. "The Supreme Court's decision last year represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years, and the president's action was an important step toward righting that wrong."

Doug Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, which backed the city's right to take the homes in the Connecticut case, said Bush's order is relatively benign precisely because it doesn't include the funding ban Cornyn and other property-rights advocates want.

#227 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 23 June 2006 - 10:38 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Jun 23 2006, 09:50 AM) View Post

I think if you look at the proposed standards, you will see that they are very urban. My only comment would be the auto-centric language that I see in the transportation sections. Even though we are not currently pursuing a rail-transit option, the codes should be crafted with future transit projects in mind. North Main has long been looked at as a corridor for access to the Stockyards area from downtown and the redevelopment should do nothing to adversely affect the eventual construction of a line.


I have sent around some parts of the proposed standards for officials in Haltom City to look at as the city looks toward studying ways to revitalize Belknap Street. For a small city that is landlocked and 80% built out, and 5 miles from one of the most vibrant downtowns in the country, this sort of project makes sense. Thanks for calling attention to the standards, it looks to me as though quite a lot on thought has gone into the process thus far, although I agree that provision should be made for future rail transportation.

#228 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 June 2006 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE(Keller Pirate @ Jun 23 2006, 06:08 PM) View Post

Saw this on the web. I didn't post the whole thing, just down to the part where Cornyn is planning to ban federal funding for state and local projects that include eminent domain. Wonder if he has talked to Kay Granger.


Trinity Uptown is a tricky case regarding the eminent domain. A reasonable person could look at the project and see that the land being taken is used for a public project where another equally rational person could see it is a economic development scheme. I think Kay could make a reasonable argument out of the project that it is for public use, so probably no problem with that executive order. Also, I don't see where this would limit the use of state and local funds. I think most of the people on here don't care who's land gets taken as long as we get some shiny, talll buildings and trendy new townhomes out of it.

Of particular interest is the height chart. By the proposed standards, the taller buildings will be in the Northeast portion of the project, near the confluence of the bypass channel and the existing channel.


Eminent Domain Executive Order
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#229 Shocker

Shocker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Downtown Ft. Worth

Posted 24 June 2006 - 05:14 PM

I am quite disappointed by the height limits. They seem quite restrictive. Also, the areas where the taller buildings are permitted seem kinda odd and small.

#230 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 24 June 2006 - 06:47 PM

I think the BEST THING to do with this situation is put it out to a vote.

Is it a PUBLIC PROJECT ?

or

Is it an ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT scheme?

Local funds I can see being used here, but for STATE that could present itself short and by the time it does get access, it may be a little too late. High construction costs, energy prices and dwindling budgets for projects like these on a statewide basis.

How exactly would Kay argue this as a public project?
Will there be like 3 YMCA's being built and detention centers (more)?
Will there be public access at anytime and any place within the site?
Will businesses only have access to serve the public through a contract/bidding basis? Tax exempt status (like a muni-golf course)?

Hard argument considering the nearby land being swallowed whole by developers. dry.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#231 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 24 June 2006 - 08:25 PM

QUOTE(Shocker @ Jun 24 2006, 06:14 PM) View Post

I am quite disappointed by the height limits. They seem quite restrictive. Also, the areas where the taller buildings are permitted seem kinda odd and small.


Actually, if you think about the view corridors of downtown, much of it makes sense. I know that some people on the forum wanted to have unlimited height restrictions and let everything develop on its own. That may be something worth discussing here. Although I would like to see the area develop, I do feel that we should preserve some of the views of downtown from various points on the North Side. It might be better to have quality mid-rise structures than to have a more suburban development with tall office and residential buildings here. Maybe we should save the high rise sites for downtown proper.

#232 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 25 June 2006 - 12:28 PM

QUOTE(John T Roberts @ Jun 24 2006, 09:25 PM) View Post

QUOTE(Shocker @ Jun 24 2006, 06:14 PM) View Post

I am quite disappointed by the height limits. They seem quite restrictive. Also, the areas where the taller buildings are permitted seem kinda odd and small.


Actually, if you think about the view corridors of downtown, much of it makes sense. I know that some people on the forum wanted to have unlimited height restrictions and let everything develop on its own. That may be something worth discussing here. Although I would like to see the area develop, I do feel that we should preserve some of the views of downtown from various points on the North Side. It might be better to have quality mid-rise structures than to have a more suburban development with tall office and residential buildings here. Maybe we should save the high rise sites for downtown proper.


I missed the height limits post on the TRV. What are they?

I don't see why unlimited heights could not be done on the west side of the TRV? But do we really have to worry? It dose look like this Generation of Fort Worthians have seen the tallest already built. Just as Dallas needs to forget about being the bigger city. Fort Worth needs to forget about have any more taller buildings. IMO. I do see about two or three 20 to 25 high story buildings being at best in the next ten years or more. In that regard Dallas is beating the tar out of Fort Worth big time. Fort Worth was already falling behind before Pier One. Now forget it . White flag goes up over Fort Worth to Dallas and tall buildings. cry.gif

#233 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 26 June 2006 - 09:19 AM

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Jun 25 2006, 12:28 PM) View Post

I missed the height limits post on the TRV. What are they?


Check out page 6 (Labelled as page 32) in the Design Standards.

I really like the appearance of the courthouse on the hill, which is a view that should be preserved. I would think this would be difficult to obscure, since the best view is down Main Street, which in its being a street precludes any obstructions from being built. I suppose the further away from Main Street you get, the higher you should be able to build.

Aren't they talking about a 20 story on Samuels Avenue? If I ever build my house on Pavillion, I'm gonna have people in high-rise buildings looking down on me from two directions.

Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#234 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 26 June 2006 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Jun 26 2006, 10:19 AM) View Post

QUOTE(Now in Denton @ Jun 25 2006, 12:28 PM) View Post

I missed the height limits post on the TRV. What are they?


Check out page 6 (Labelled as page 32) in the Design Standards.

Aren't they talking about a 20 story on Samuels Avenue? If I ever build my house on Pavillion, I'm gonna have people in high-rise buildings looking down on me from two directions.


Yes ! I have heard that also. And have a major problem with that. I don't want anything over two stories on Samuels! mad.gif

Thier at least two site's on the TRV that could do a high tower and not mess up the Courthouse view!

Thanks AndyN .I just read page six. All I can say Bummer. frown.gif

#235 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 26 June 2006 - 10:10 PM

I hate to say it, but I think Samuels Avenue's days as a strictly residential street are numbered. I don't necessarily have a problem with the towers. I bought into the neighborhood anticipating regentrification and further renewal, even though it won't happen as fast on the north end of the street above Cold Springs.

The only thing that stays the same is everything changes everyday. Time marches on.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#236 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 01 July 2006 - 12:00 PM

QUOTE(AndyN @ Jun 26 2006, 11:10 PM) View Post

I hate to say it, but I think Samuels Avenue's days as a strictly residential street are numbered. I don't necessarily have a problem with the towers. I bought into the neighborhood anticipating regentrification and further renewal, even though it won't happen as fast on the north end of the street above Cold Springs.

The only thing that stays the same is everything changes everyday. Time marches on.


I think your missing my point . I have no problem with people moving in. It has been for years been a Quiet and Historic area. Now it will be a busy Historic area. Im talking about a 20 story building or even a 5 story building . Is just way out of place on Samuels. But Uptown TRV can't have a taller building? What gives? But if its that Schumberg guy behind this 20 story building than we know it wont be built. newlaugh.gif

#237 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 01 July 2006 - 12:07 PM

[quote name='Now in Denton' date='May 18 2006, 12:48 PM' post='25773']
Again look at this rendering Samuels on the left hand side .Where does a taller building on the TRV block the courthouse? I would think a 5 story building on SAMUELS would block the Courthouse view than anything on thr TRV.


IPB Image
[/quote]
[/quote]


#238 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 01 July 2006 - 06:30 PM

I suppose I never looked carefully at a photo of the TRV model from that angle before. It never occurred to me before that there is not a "central plaza or square" on Main Street to be a focus of the development. I feel a densely surrounded urban park with peripheral trees and an interior lawn should be included as a focus of civic life for the residents of Trinity Uptown. The walkways along the lake and canals are fine for walking or lounging, but this place is going to really need a "central space" to come alive. I know that the space next to the Mercado further north would be a good public space, but I think that the same idea needs to be applied to the TRV area as well.

#239 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 02 July 2006 - 11:10 AM

^^^
I Agree.

#240 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:14 PM

I don't know about y'all, but I do see it on that rendering. Just north of the ball park at the mouth of the Trinity. Just East of the Main St. (soon to be bridge).

???

If the proposed TRV area were to FLASHFLOOD. Where the heck would you go to ESCAPE and take higher ground?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#241 Now in Denton

Now in Denton

    Elite Member

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

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:21 PM

QUOTE(safly @ Jul 2 2006, 01:14 PM) View Post

I don't know about y'all, but I do see it on that rendering. Just north of the ball park at the mouth of the Trinity. Just East of the Main St. (soon to be bridge).

???

If the proposed TRV area were to FLASHFLOOD. Where the heck would you go to ESCAPE and take higher ground?


Denver.............. duhhhhhh........... newlaugh.gif

#242 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:27 PM

that's a good one there. But I didn't mean in the DEEP IMPACT sense of ESCAPE.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#243 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 02 July 2006 - 02:44 PM

[quote name='safly' date='Jul 2 2006, 01:14 PM' post='27365']
I don't know about y'all, but I do see it on that rendering. Just north of the ball park at the mouth of the Trinity. Just East of the Main St. (soon to be bridge).
[quote]

OK, but what about the northern part of the development where the vast majority of the people and businesses will be?

[quote]
If the proposed TRV area were to FLASHFLOOD. Where the heck would you go to ESCAPE and take higher ground?
[/quote]

This is a half-billion dollar flood control project rolleyes.gif

#244 ghughes

ghughes

    Senior Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:University West

Posted 04 July 2006 - 05:56 PM

Wonder how much an insurance policy against the 500 year flood would cost instead. Tear down the levies, develop the area, and buy insurance against simultaneous inablity of Benbrook and Eagle Mountain to control downstream situations. Gotta be cheaper, and gets the same effect without all that canal building and the stock tank.

#245 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 05 July 2006 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Jul 4 2006, 06:56 PM) View Post

Wonder how much an insurance policy against the 500 year flood would cost instead. Tear down the levies, develop the area, and buy insurance against simultaneous inablity of Benbrook and Eagle Mountain to control downstream situations. Gotta be cheaper, and gets the same effect without all that canal building and the stock tank.


Who needs 500 year flood insurance? Look at New Orleans. If the federal government is willing to bail out people who knowingly live below sea level at the coast, I'm sure they'll bail us out too.

#246 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 05 July 2006 - 10:34 PM

Good point. But I hardly consider a $5K voucher card much of a BAILOUT. Unless the Fed. gov't is planning on or has planned on BAILING out the Insurers. Oh well, busy day today wink.gif , time for anapa nap.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#247 courtnie

courtnie

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 06 July 2006 - 01:01 PM

Or the fact that the contents of your dwelling isnt insured..for those of us that are forced to have flood insurance....I think if the levees come down..it will be a massive mistake.....

#248 mrowl

mrowl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Location:Grapevine

Posted 15 July 2006 - 10:47 AM

are these virtual tours new?

it has the 900 ft. (unrealized) tower in it. Would have looked great.

http://www.uptownfor...virtualtour.htm

#249 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 15 July 2006 - 12:49 PM

QUOTE(mrowl @ Jul 15 2006, 11:47 AM) View Post

are these virtual tours new?

it has the 900 ft. (unrealized) tower in it. Would have looked great.

http://www.uptownfor...virtualtour.htm


The first one (daytime) is not new, I saw it at least 6 months, probably more like 9 months ago. The night-time tour I have not seen yet.

I didn't see a 900' tall building in either one though.

#250 apearson28

apearson28

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mid-Cities
  • Interests:Architecture, Urban Planning, Art, Music, Reading, Photography

Posted 18 July 2006 - 08:51 PM

Agency created to oversee Trinity Uptown project
By MAX B. BAKER
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
FORT WORTH -- The Tarrant Regional Water District created a nonprofit agency Tuesday to oversee not only the sweeping $435 million Trinity Uptown project, but also other developments along 88 miles of the Trinity River and its tributaries.

While the Trinity River Vision Authority’s exact powers were not been fully outlined Tuesday, board members said the new agency will bring together the immediate stakeholders in the Trinity River Vision while leaving the major decisions with the water district.

“Centralizing program management is important to staying on schedule and on budget,” said J.D. Granger, the Trinity River Vision’s project director. “This entity may be a perfect vehicle to do that. But the responsibilities of this authority will increase with the partners’ comfort levels and understanding of this process.”

Appointed to serve on the authority by the water district board were Fort Worth City Manager Charles Boswell, Tarrant County Administrator G.K. Maenius, Water Board President Vic Henderson, Water District General Manager Jim Oliver and community volunteer Elaine Petrus.

The authority will operate similar to the tax increment financing districts appointed by the city of Fort Worth. While those agencies set policies for development in areas such as downtown, the Fort Worth City Council oversees and approves their decisions, Granger said. He said the authority will adopt more specific guidelines on how to operate after it meets with financial advisers.

Trinity Uptown is an 800-acre project that calls for creation of a Town Lake and a Trinity River bypass channel that would cut through the near north side of Fort Worth, creating an island of commercial and residential development. It is part of the even bigger Trinity River Vision, developed in the 1990s, that hopes to improve the Trinity’s greenbelts and tributaries throughout the Fort Worth area.

Opponents of Trinity Uptown have criticized its portrayal as a flood control project and said that its overall price tag could reach $700 million. They’ve also been outraged that some of the infrastructure projects may eventually force some land owners off of their property.

Originally, Granger wanted the authority created to allow him to accept donations for his Trinity Uptown public education work. But as businesses asked to underwrite his newsletters — costing up to $7,000 each — Granger found that needed a way to accept their donations.

But several board members expressed concern that simply creating a new agency for the singular purpose of doing public relations obscured the fact that it eventually may make significant decisions about the Trinity Uptown project and other work the district is doing.

Board Vice President Hal Sparks said he wanted the public to understand that it wasn’t an “end run around something they didn’t understand the first time.” He wanted it made clear that the authority would eventually deal with the flood control parts of the project as well as coordinating that work with the city and county.

“It’s centralized management of the entire Trinity River Vision,” Sparks said.

In another sign that the large Trinity Uptown project is moving forward, the board also agreed to pay Pinnacle Consulting Management Group $1.3 million to begin meeting with property owners who may be displaced by the project.

Pinnacle’s agents will meet with property owners to determine what may be needed in relocating their businesses. The agents will explain the property owners’ rights and the process that must be followed, but Pinnacle will not be directly involved in any acquisitions, officials said.

Pinnacle’s agents also will seek the right to enter properties property to do environmental testing to determine whether any toxic materials are present and, if necessary, develop an action plan for cleaning it up, said Woody Frossard, environmental services director for the water district.





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