Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 1314

Thread: TRP: The Trinity River Spans

  1. #151
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    Angry SCHUTZE does it again

    Puppet Samba
    By pulling strings, road hustlers can make the city council dance
    BY JIM SCHUTZE - jimschutze@mindspring.com

    How cool would it be to have a beautiful urban lake downtown, surrounded by pocket parks and amphitheaters, where a person could carry a bag lunch on a cool day and maybe even rent a canoe? That's what we voted for in 1998 when we narrowly approved the Trinity River bond issue.
    So why is it that the Dallas City Council two weeks from now will vote instead to approve an eight-lane freeway and a mud hole?

    I've got numbers to prove once and for all that this road is not needed. It fails every test of necessity, and yet it will not die.

    There are two pieces of really bad logic that keep getting quoted to justify building a gigantic freeway in the river bed where we were told we were going to get a beautiful "central park." One is that the new freeway will provide a detour during the upcoming reconstruction of the old tangle of freeways downtown called the "mixmaster."

    Nope. Not true.

    At a city council briefing in May 2001, state highway engineers surprised the city council by telling them that the massive rebuilding planned for the mixmaster would not be helped by constructing a new highway along the river. The two things are separate and practically unrelated. When they work on the mixmaster, the state will provide temporary detours, as it has done at the "high five interchange" at Central Expressway and Interstate 635. Generally speaking, no one ever builds a new freeway to act as a temporary detour, especially this one, which will ruin forever the city's ability to develop the river as a unique recreational destination.

    So after the detour argument became inoperative, the road boosters backed off to a more nebulous assertion that this new highway will be a "reliever." It will relieve things. Ask them what it will relieve, and you'll never get a straight answer. It's just a "reliever," almost as if it will relieve everything from traffic congestion to sinus pressure.

    Let's cut to the chase here and go to some basic black-and-white numbers that really tell the tale on this deal--the traffic volume "warrants" for federally supported freeways. The road the council is going to approve along the Trinity won't come close to meeting the federal and state standards.

    The feds maintain a specific set of standards to decide which proposed road projects deserve federal subsidies and which ones don't. A bit of background: Since the early 1990s, it has been federal law that the only good reason to build a freeway in an urban area is to reduce traffic congestion and cut down on pollution. Want federal and state money for a new freeway? Prove it will siphon off X amount of traffic from older roads. Then you can get the money.

    But to do that, you have to put the road between places people already want to go, from this crowded place to that crowded place. That's how you get traffic volumes. And that rules out the old-fashioned use of road money, which was to act as a can opener for developers: Developers always want to use roads to generate new traffic to an empty place nobody even knew about before the road was built but where they own land.

    The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) publishes a table of traffic volume warrants in effect for this region to determine how much traffic you have to have in order to qualify for a certain size of freeway built with federal and state highway money. In order to qualify for the eight-lane freeway the road hustlers want to plunk down where you and I thought we were going to have a park, they would have to show that the Trinity River highway will attract between 138,000 and 184,000 car trips a day.

    But NCTCOG's numbers for the eight-lane Trinity highway show its projected daily volume down around 103,000--substantially out of range for the road planned for the Trinity. In fact, when you put a sharp pencil to these numbers, the Trinity road starts to look seriously out of place. At eight lanes, with the amount of traffic the engineers hope for, the Trinity road will be carrying fewer than 13,000 trips per lane, which will put it beneath the range of a rural freeway.

    Why would we build a rural freeway in downtown Dallas, especially when it is soaking up most of the money we thought they were going to spend on our lakes and parks? And right here is where we will run up against the next piece of seriously slippery logic in this deal: The road backers will be quick to say, "Ah, but this isn't really a freeway. It's a toll road. And toll roads don't have to meet the federal traffic volume warrants."

    Mmmm...let's think about that. True: This road will charge tolls. True: It will be operated by the North Texas Tollway Authority. But the plan the council is going to approve two weeks from now calls for toll-road funding to cover only 60 percent of the cost of the highway. The other 40 percent--$248 million--will come from state and federal highway money.

    Question: If it's a toll road, why doesn't the toll authority pay for the whole deal? Isn't that what toll roads are supposed to do--pay for themselves? But it can't. There won't be enough traffic on the road to remotely pay the tolls needed to build an eight-lane toll road. Hence the need for the public subsidy.

    So it's not a "freeway," because it won't be free. It can't meet the standards for an eight-lane freeway. And it's not a true toll road, because it can't pay its own way with tolls. It needs a major tax subsidy.

    So what is it? What is it for? What test does it meet? What end does it serve?

    It's a development road. It's an old-fashioned can opener, heavily lobbied by the public works contracting companies that brought us Ron Kirk as mayor, and by the Stemmons corridor landholding interests, who have played a major role in the political financing of key city council members. North Dallas member and Trinity road booster Lois Finkelman, for example, probably wouldn't even be on the council had it not been for the assistance she has received over the years from her campaign treasurer, George Shafer, a key figure in the Stemmons corridor group.

    The close-in supporters of the road hope it will spawn the redevelopment of the worn-out warehouse district between the Stemmons freeway and the river. I'm convinced the Trinity toll road is also important to more far-flung interests associated with the secretive "Trans-Texas Corridor" project--a plan to build a new rail and rubber-tired freight route from Laredo to Ross Perot's airport in Tarrant County.

    The Texas Department of Transportation told me last week that the full list of bidders on that project and their detailed proposals are still secret and cannot be released. I couldn't get Dean International, the Dallas lobbying firm heading up the project, to return my calls. But some of the bits and pieces of design I have been able to gather here and there make me think the diagonal northwest-to-southeast route offered by the Trinity highway could be important to this plan.

    City council people never pay attention to this kind of stuff. I guess they don't have time. They tend to laugh at people who do pay attention and call them "wonks." Especially at Dallas City Hall, where the pressure from voters is distant and diffuse, politicians worry about the last biggest dude who leaned on them.

    It's never you or I.

    In fact, this Trinity highway business is the most powerful example I can offer you to illustrate what the Dallas City Council really is--a puppet show. That's why you and I do not get our lake, and the Stemmons corridor people and the freight haulers do get their road. They pull the puppets' strings. We do not.

    I had a conversation about all this recently with Mayor Laura Miller and Mary Suhm, the chief assistant city manager. I asked them why we had to put off building the downtown lake as it was promised in the 1998 bond campaign and why we couldn't put off the highway instead. I asked why City Hall couldn't say, "We have to put the road off. There's not that much demand for it, and we're going to put all our eggs in that lake basket."

    The mayor said quietly, "We're not going to do that. We need a road."

    Later in the same conversation, I said, "Whenever I ask anybody how come the road cannot be put off, the answer is always, 'That's not going to happen.' But I don't get why. It's not like the Texas Department of Transportation is begging for this. It's not like the North Texas Tollway Authority is begging for it, or they'd put more money in it."

    Mary Suhm said: "But we have to have a reliever route, Jim. What do you want to do? Do you want the air completely polluted and traffic at a dead stop in downtown Dallas?"

    But this is not a reliever route. It's not a congestion buster. There are standards for those. This road doesn't meet those standards. You're not a giraffe. I'm not a llama. You can't call it by a name just to get your way. Reality is what it is.

    I'll tell you what this road is: It's a straight-up scam. That's what all that slippery talk means. That's why the council members herk and jerk and scuffle about when you try to pin them down on it. It's why two weeks from now they will lift their wooden hands to vote for it. They're puppets. And you and I ain't the puppeteers.

    dallasobserver.com | originally published: November 27, 2003
    --------------------------------

    This does not really surprise me, but this is BS! It is time to start blasting the kids at city hall again.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  2. #152
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    Unhappy On the other hand.....

    Sleepy Hollow club to be sold to city, but what's the price?
    'Everyman's' place for golf closing; courts likely to settle amount
    11:11 AM CST on Saturday, November 29, 2003
    By MICHAEL E. YOUNG / The Dallas Morning News
    http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/...low.72e3b.html

    For 47 years, the Sleepy Hollow Golf and Country Club snuggled in an elbow of the Trinity River, whose waters served as capricious threat in flood times and nurturing sustenance through the hot Texas summers.

    But since the late '90s, the river's embrace has been a death hold, and now Sleepy Hollow's end has come.

    The club will close Sunday, owner Remy Tabor said, and on Jan. 1, the city of Dallas will take possession of all 265 acres, two 18-hole golf courses, the clubhouse, pro shop, driving range and all the rest and use the property in its Trinity River plan.

    The question of money, though, will take a lot longer to sort out.

    "The issue of adequate compensation will be in the courts for a while," Mr. Tabor said. "There will be a trial. This thing is not settled. We're way too far apart."

    Mr. Tabor declined to provide specifics, except to say, "They're way, way, way off in their amount, but it's pointless for me to argue that in the newspaper and for them to counter-argue it."

    So the final selling price probably will be up to the courts, and Mr. Tabor, a lawyer by training, seems almost eager to see how the judge will sort all this out.

    "Condemnation proceedings are dominated by appraisals, but this is a peculiar case," he said. "Normally you have a lot of 'comparables' to use. But this isn't a three-bedroom house in DeSoto, where there are a lot of other three-bedroom houses.

    "In this case, there is no comparable, because as far as we know, there's never been a sale of a 36-hole golf operation like this."

    Greg Ajemian, senior program manager for the Trinity River Corridor Project, agreed that determining a value for the country club was complicated.

    "The city, for developing an appraisal, got an appraiser whose expertise is golf courses," Mr. Ajemian said. "So that's what gave us our baseline. It's based on all the income, the earnings, what the business is pulling in year in and year out."

    Based on that appraisal, the city set fair market value at $2.7 million, Mr. Ajemian said, and total compensation at $3 million.

    Mr. Tabor doesn't think things can be computed so simply. Sleepy Hollow is a different sort of golf course, he said, and has been since it debuted as a semiprivate club – but open to the public – along the city's southern edge in 1956.

    Diverse membership


    "We're not a rich man's country club," Mr. Tabor said. "It's always been an everyman's golf course. The dues and fees are under everyone in town. We have a very diverse membership and always have since the day it opened.
    "So the popular notion that a country club is a bunch of rich, white people isn't so."

    Sleepy Hollow's membership includes former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk – "He's been a member, to my recollection, since 1991," Mr. Tabor said – but also includes police officers, teachers, school principals and pastors.

    Some of the city's upscale clubs charge many thousands of dollars in initiation fees. Sleepy Hollow's were never more than $500, Mr. Tabor said, and most members paid considerably less than that.

    "With this plan hanging over our head for the last seven years, we've had no initiation fee," he said. "It's an awkward thing to be under that black cloud."

    Monthly dues for a family membership, including unlimited golf, ran $125. And for retirees who didn't like the weekend crowds, a Monday-Friday package cost $80.

    "But we've lost about half the members we had over the last three months, and the others are just sick about the sale," Mr. Tabor said. "We have members who have been coming here for years. We still have some of the original members" – old-timers like Nat Pinkston.

    He joined in 1956 and has been playing the course twice a week for the last 30 years. Seeing the club shut down, he said, is like losing a member of the family.

    "I'm unhappy about it," said Mr. Pinkston, 88, of Dallas. "It means I'm going to have to go somewhere else to play golf. I don't know where I'm going to go play."

    Just as the club has been around for a long time, so too have plans for controlling flooding along the Trinity. And Mr. Tabor doesn't dispute that Sleepy Hollow stretches across one side of the Trinity's flood plain. The plain, he said, is perfect for golf courses.

    "That's the highest and best use for flood plain property, because you can flood it and it doesn't really do any damage," he said.

    When Mr. Tabor bought Sleepy Hollow 23 years ago, the city had a plan for flood control that mostly spared the golf course.

    "All we would have lost was one green, and that's on a long hole and we could have changed that with no problem," he said.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plan was even less painful.

    "They planned to leave us alone and do everything they needed to do on the east side of the river," Mr. Tabor said. "That's all unimproved over there, one owner with 1,300 acres."

    City's plan


    But the city drew a new plan, one that meant the end for Sleepy Hollow.
    The reason, Mr. Tabor said, is "it's politically awkward for the city to cut a tree."

    Dallas allows developers to remove trees, he said, as long as they're replaced with trees from a list of acceptable hardwoods.

    "The corps' plan [for the east bank of the river] recognized that," Mr. Tabor said. "They planned to take out some trash trees, some hackberries and cottonwoods, save the hardwoods and trim them up, and do some dirt work on some old gravel pits.

    "But the city decided it would be easier to buy the club and not deal with groups like the Sierra Club."

    The city's flood control plans left Sleepy Hollow untouched until it was revised beginning in 1994, Mr. Ajemian said.

    "That's when the Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee was formed to come up with a local preferred approach to flood control, and the corps worked closely with them," he said.

    The corps' proposed plan followed the western bank of the Trinity through much of Dallas to roughly Interstate 45, then shifted its series of swales to the eastern side, avoiding the golf course, Mr. Ajemian said.

    But the citizens committee, with its large contingent of environmentalists, worried about the impact of the corps' work on the Great Trinity Forest. The committee preferred keeping flood control improvements on the western bank, including the Sleepy Hollow property.

    A revitalized forest would provide various sorts of recreation possibilities, including hike-and-bike trails.

    But Mr. Tabor said he doubted it would match Sleepy Hollow's use.

    "We're playing 50,000 rounds of golf here a year," he said. "Will they be building something that gives that much recreation to that many people?"

    Mr. Ajemian said he understands Mr. Tabor's frustration.

    "My father was a greens superintendent for 40 years. I grew up on a golf course," he said. "But we do have attributes in the Trinity forest that we placed at a high priority. It has the highest ecological value you can pull. It's just a different kind of recreation."

    In any large civic project, someone is bound to be disappointed, Mr. Ajemian said.

    "You have a whole bunch of stakeholders involved, and one way or another you have some winners and some losers. But you try to formulate these plans as a whole.

    "And in the end, we come out way ahead."

    E-mail myoung@dallasnews.com
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  3. #153
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,703
    Ugh, disgusting! This is as bad as the old frisco soccer stadium fiasco! Well, maybe not quite as bad, but it's up there! The City of Dallas needs to stop coping out of these things like little children and start making the best decisions, even if those decisions will make life difficult for the council members. UGH!

  4. #154
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Its a bag full of crap. The city bought it out because they didn't want to mess with the Sierra Club? What a bunch of enviromentally irresponsible knuckleheads.

  5. #155
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Its a bag full of crap. The city bought it out because they didn't want to mess with the Sierra Club? What a bunch of enviromentally irresponsible knuckleheads.

  6. #156
    is gone.
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    77023
    Posts
    5,254
    I don't like the City of Dallas' means of going about things (Is it any wonder Richardson remains quite popular?) regarding the country club and all, but I certainly can't blame the city for not wanting to deal with the Sierra Club (the We Can Never Approve of Anything Because It's Never Enough and Isn't In Any Way Radical Club). I mean, it's all politics anyhow, and we don't need more of that. Also, Cottonwoods and Hackberries are not trees you want to save; they are junk trees. By the way, I think there's a political agenda on both sides, because Laura Miller (Oh look, I live in Oak Cliff because my husband is a sleaze down in Austin) wants to stay popular with the city by providing more pavement (which is nothing abnormal, unfortunately) and the environmentalists are so extreme in their vehement opposition to any kind of development (given a chance, they would make the whole world live in grass huts and caves and eat only plants). If anything is going to happen, both sides are going to have to accept the inevitable sacrifices, not for just a compromise, but the best option available.

    I give this round of Trinity development talks two more years, and if nothing happens, be prepared to wait another ten or fifteen. See, this is why I like a) small towns, or b) nice cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and - ahem - FORT WORTH. Oh well: I'm moving to Huntsville in less than a year anyway. At least they seem interested in improving their town...

  7. #157
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    From today's DMN letters...

    Trinity plan on track


    Re: "Trinity options floated – Most on council back river plan's extra cost; critics allege 'switch,' " Nov. 6 news story.

    The Trinity Project is on a tight schedule. The progress we made at the Nov. 5 City Council meeting will help us meet our deadlines. The city staff and the Urban Design Team presented a comprehensive briefing on the entire project from the Elm Fork in northwest Dallas to the Great Trinity Forest in South Dallas.

    I believe that the council is united in its commitment to the project. Our main concern was to improve the water source for the lakes. We want running water with fountains, waterfalls and whitewater rapids.

    Each of us realizes that we only have one chance at this, and we have to do it right. Moreover, as chair of the City Council Trinity River Committee, I am committed to ensuring that all of the complex issues associated with this project are studied and discussed in order to do what's in the best interest of the future of the Trinity River Corridor.

    The funds approved by the voters are being spent exactly as we said they would be. Not one penny has been shifted. Private organizations such as the Dallas Institute, the American Institute of Architects and the Trinity Commons have stepped forward to raise the dollars that we do not have.

    Your headline said, "Trinity Options Floated." From my perspective, it should have said, "Trinity Design Flows Smoothly."

    Ed Oakley,

    Dallas City Council,

    District 3,

    chairman, City Council

    Trinity Committee, Dallas

  8. #158
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    This quote of the TXCN message board gives me the most hope that the highway will never be built

    "It won't have any effect whatsoever because it will never get built. The whole concept of using the river corridor for anything beyond flood control and limited park use is just too ridiculous for anyone other than a greedy bond selling politician to consider. The USArmy Corps of Engineers are not going to let anybody fool with or build on the levee's. The land between the levees is a flood zone and it would be just plain stupid to build anything taller than a soccer goal because it will be submerged some of the time and probably washed away every few years. The Trinity river swells to it's levees every year this reality won't change. If anything the flood potential of the river increases as the speed of the runoff increases by the paving of the river basin. The pictures of a Town Lake ala Austin won't work in Dallas. If the basin was filled with only three feet of water that would diminish flood control capacity to the point that the levees would be over run, every year, it would be a manmade disaster waiting to happen and it would happen every year."

  9. #159
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    Question What the ....?

    hmmmm not according to Jim Schutze....
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  10. #160
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    .

  11. #161
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I'm curious. Should Dallas flip the bill for the contamination of the Trinity River that is south of DFW are going down to Lake Livingstone?

  12. #162
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,283
    All of the fighting is just ridiculous. As for the quote, I disagree. I have experience in working with flood control with lakes. Basically if whomever is working on the lakes has the money, they can make it like townlake if they want. They could even make it shore to shore river 183 to 1-35 if they want. The Trinity flood plain is downtown because that is where they want the water to go. This is controlled up and down stream. The problem is when you shift the amount of water you want to be permanent, then the runoff floods downstream. I believe this is what they are planning for as we speak. The city is building wetlands as we speak for this. You could also let lake Lewisville and Grapvine hold this water. Problem is most of the land around area lakes is private with hasn't allowed proper flood control to be implemented to it's full extent. This will be more about money than what they can do with the town lakes because they could pretty much do what they want. They could build beaches if they like.

  13. #163
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Yes, and they could also concrete the whole river too, if they want.

  14. #164
    Administrator tamtagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Atlanta - Dallas
    Posts
    13,049
    Cottonwoods are beautiful trees worth saving at all cost.
    Hackberrys are beautiful trees worth saving at all cost.

    Rebuilt interstates 30 and 35 should double as the embankment providing flood control through central Dallas county.

    Construction of lakes in the Trinity flood zone through central Dallas County should be centralized on the effort to provide drinking water.

  15. #165
    Mid-Rise Member MustangMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    LH Dallas
    Posts
    266
    Hackberries are attractive, I have around 12 in my back-yard, but they don't last very long, and they easily get diseases such as mistletoe. This is why they are considered trash trees, and why it is more desireable to replace them with longer lasting trees.

  16. #166
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    Will TXU Ruin the Trinity?

    http://parkcitiespeople.com/Editoria...p?ArticleId=38

    Ugly electrical trestles could destroy Dallas’ billion-dollar effort to beautify the river.

    Contrary to a recent report in the Morning News, the Trinity River plan is alive and well. The News reported — and seems to continue to believe — that the amenities promised to the voters during the bond election have been cut. That’s not true. In fact, the amenities have been enhanced.

    It’s useful to remember that Laura Miller was the most vocal public opponent of the Trinity bond issue. As mayor, she now finds herself with the primary responsibility for implementing it. She’s not known for being bashful about holding people’s feet to the fire, and she appointed her own committee to re-examine the plan from top to bottom. Her committee made changes — good changes — and the City Council endorsed them. The plan is on track.

    What was the change? Transportation advocates wanted a cutoff highway along the Trinity that would relieve pressure on the Mixmaster. They insisted on a highway capable of handling 200,000 cars a day. Only a multi-lane, concrete super-road can handle that much traffic. That kind of highway would have destroyed the aesthetics and the accessibility of the parkland envisioned as the Trinity’s major benefit.

    The mayor’s committee changed the road, reduced its capacity to 100,000 (plenty to relieve the Mixmaster), and restored the park as the major focus of Trinity development. Mayor Miller, despite her reservations, has provided the right kind of civic leadership at the right time. All the pieces are in place. The city has signed off. The business community is on board.

    But there’s one fly in the ointment.

    Dallas needs more electrical capacity. TXU’s Oncar division has been working with the Public Utilities Commission to deliver it. Its plan at present calls for huge trestles to be constructed from the power station at Continental downtown along the river to Irving. The cost is estimated at $10 million, and under the public utility law, TXU’s capital outlay will be repaid by all utility companies operating in Texas.

    At Continental, it just so happens, the city and private donors are investing millions to build a bridge by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava for the Woodall Rodgers extension. Like Calatrava’s other bridges in Europe, it promises to be a work of art.

    But no one expected its view to be a line of huge electrical trestles.

    What to do? Dallas needs the electricity. Dallas also needs the Trinity to be the beautiful amenity our land-locked, mountain-deprived city has never had.

    The most obvious solution is for TXU to run the electrical cables underground. Unfortunately, the cost to tunnel and pipe the electrical cables would be $80 million — eight times what the TXU estimated. Calatrava has suggested that the TXU pipe the cables but not tunnel, running the pipes in the river itself. While that seems like a reasonable solution to us, a TXU spokesman brushed it aside.

    But here’s the real rub. This is not a decision that Dallas or even TXU can make. The costs will be borne by all public utilities in Texas. Out-of-town utilities don’t care how ugly their trestles make the Trinity. Nor is there much reason for the Public Utilities Commission to care. None of the three commissioners — Rebecca Klein, Julie Parsley, and Paul Hudson — is from Dallas. The governor who appointed them, Rick Perry, is not from Dallas.

    If there was ever a time for Mayor Miller to do what she does best — crusade — this is it. The first ally she should enlist is TXU, which must immediately develop a practical alternative solution to the trestles. Then both the city and the utility should go to the Commission and fight like hell to get it adopted.

    The Trinity is a billion-dollar investment by the city, the state, and the federal government. Dallas cannot allow $10 million worth of unsightly electrical wires to ruin it.

  17. #167
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575


    Just read that myself boozo. Thanks for posting it. This certainly needs to be addressed.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  18. #168
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    broohhahahahahahahaaAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....a......aaa. ..aa...aaa.

    I'm starting to think that the citizens of Dallas are to blame for all of this. All of this over a River that wasn't meant for what the Dallas citizens WANT it to become. This could really blow up in the city of Dallas' face. But it makes me frustrated as well.

  19. #169
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    Don't those numbers seem a little funny?

    $10 million aboveground
    $80 million underground

    I'm no electrical engineer, but wouldn't the cost of building towers more or less even out with the cost of underground pipe?

    Surely, it can't be 8 times as much?

  20. #170
    High-Rise Member dallastophoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    992
    Can this keep getting any worse???

    In regards to your comment, mikedsjr - I realize that you take great pride from being from FW, but that side of the trinity was never supposed to be what it is now either... both cities have straightened the river and leveed the hell out of it - otherwise, both cities would be devastating flood plains in the spring... dallas' grand trinity vision could be accomplished, if only city officials allowed it...

  21. #171
    LH Copycat Columbus Civil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    LH
    Posts
    5,588
    I would think that a major portion of the extra cost of undergound utilities would come from having to tunnel through rock.

  22. #172
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    DallastoPhoenix,

    I would love to see Dallas have a great river park to go to that is friendly to nature as well. I really don't have any problem with beautifying it. But as i keep reading up on all this, I just can't help but think the citizens of Dallas were con-ed into this. They voted on one thing and now they are getting something different. And to top off that, they now have issues with the power company. What next? Concrete the whole Trinity to be like LA? If you think i like this, your wrong.

    My interests is enviromental here. The Sierra Club has tried hard to get something enviromentally friendly here, but the City of Dallas has barely listened to them.

  23. #173
    is gone.
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    77023
    Posts
    5,254
    It continually astounds me how cities just go on accepting those power lines. Does it occur to anyone that the fact that you can't get radio reception anywhere near those things THAT THEY JUST MIGHT BE BAD FOR YOU?! And don't even get me started on their ugliness. Burying power lines is definitely worth it. I admit that most of the time, I'm more than thrifty or frugal; I'm downright cheap. But when I spend money, I always make sure that it is the right thing to do and is the best option avaliable. No matter where it is, the commisioners must accept that when the people speak, you at least need to listen.

    By the way, I kicked around some numbers and made some estimations, and sure enough, it is actually more expensive to have towers in the longrun. The land, the maintenance, accidents, you name it. If something happens, just make access tubes or something, and in less than a quarter of the time and without a cherry picker or helicopter, problem solved.

    Please tell me that this is not forward thinking, and just common sense. Isn't it? Obviously, these people need to learn how business works, because when it comes to money, they spend, waste, and are just altogether sloppy with public money.

  24. #174
    Skyscraper Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,703
    Maybe they know something you don't about the costs. It is, afterall, their profession... Not saying they can't make mistakes, and I tihnk it would be a travesty for this to happen, but I trust that this is the easiest and cheapest solution. I can't comprehend a power company having alterior motives on this kind of thing, so it must make economic sense in some way. Now, past that, we MUST find a way to stop them from building the towers. It's public land, how can they do that without city permission??? That must be illegal in some way.

  25. #175
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    DALLAS, TEXAS
    Posts
    234

    Lightbulb

    As much as I hate power lines, it baffles me that no one has thought of making them more attractive. I always thought that they could change the design or add vibrant colors to the power lines that would blend in with the landscape. It doesn't seem like that would cost that much? Especially since they will be apart of a more environmental friendly project like the Trinity River.
    Last edited by CARTMAN; 05 December 2003 at 05:51 PM.

  26. #176
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I've traveled around the Trinity a few times lately to see if it should be modified and really i thought that just placing a bike trail along the river with accessible points along the way wouldn't be that bad. Work with a bike trail for awhile. Then if something could be done later then work with that latter. Just don't mess up the Trinity with a stupid tollway. Please!

  27. #177
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    Looks like tomorrow is a big day for the Trinity. It got the lead editorial.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...ity.9517b.html

    Be Bold: Half-measures on Trinity project won't do
    12:04 AM CST on Sunday, December 7, 2003


    It is gut-check time for the Dallas City Council regarding the Trinity River project.

    Tomorrow, council members need to commit to a first-phase plan for the river that includes lakes and pedestrian promenades that can make the Trinity a popular gathering place.

    The council will have many decisions to make about the broad vision for the river corridor. Up for discussion will be the number of lanes for a toll road along one of the Trinity levees, equestrian facilities and a learning center in the Great Trinity Forest, and other recreational amenities.

    Council member Ed Oakley, who heads the city's Trinity committee, wants the City Council to approve the entire plan even though Dallas would come up $100 million short in funding. Voters authorized $246 million for the river improvements in 1998.

    We agree with Mr. Oakley's assessment that the council's commitment to the overall project will open the door for other sources of government revenue as well as private funds. "Until we say this is what we intend to do, there is no way to look for other funds," he said.

    Council members can't go with half-measures if they want to make the Trinity River corridor a place that generates economic development and brings people back to the central city. A strategy that includes only basic lakes with little access in the first phase of construction would be a slap at voters who approved bonds for the riverway.

    The council should confirm its informal decision to reduce the number of lanes for the Trinity tollway from eight to six on the northern portion and four to the south. And it should adopt the bold vision that consultants Alex Krieger and William Eager have outlined for the river corridor.

    This is no time for city officials to succumb to the financial challenges of this vital project.

  28. #178
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    Unhappy Trinity project: A ball of confusion

    Trinity project: A ball of confusion
    Two years after vision adopted, council voting today on major revision
    08:45 PM CST on Sunday, December 7, 2003
    By VICTORIA LOE HICKS / The Dallas Morning News
    http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/...ity.7a02d.html

    Here is the byzantine history of Dallas' Trinity River project, captured in a single moment:

    It happened at Wednesday's City Council meeting, and it concerned a relatively modest issue: the size of the proposed Trinity Forest nature center.

    Some council members thought they'd settled the issue at a previous meeting, opting for a big center rather than a small one. Others said, no, it wasn't decided.

    Staff members shook their heads and said, well, there was a decision of sorts, but if there was a vote, it was only a straw vote, which wasn't recorded and ... . That's what Dallas taxpayers are left with, as the council prepares to vote Monday on whether to endorse a substantial revision to the Trinity plan it adopted in 2001.

    "There seems to be a disconnect," said council member Ed Oakley, who chairs the council's Trinity River Committee, upon learning that some still consider the size of the nature center a live issue. "We can't keep having these conversations."

    Wednesday was hardly the council's first bout of confusion over the Trinity plan. Tangled as the plan is in abstruse federal regulations, members often strain to understand what they have decided, what they are empowered to decide and what repercussions will follow from their decisions about the city's largest public works project.

    Monday's vote can be seen as a significant statement of consensus on some of the project's most contentious aspects. Among them, that:

    • The toll road between the levees has been trimmed from eight lanes to six lanes north of Woodall Rodgers Freeway and four lanes south of it.

    • The entire road will be on the downtown side of the river, not split, with some lanes running along either bank.

    • The downtown section of the highway will be depressed into the levee's surface, making it less obtrusive, and a large pedestrian deck will be built to span the barrier between downtown and the river.

    • There will be two mid-size downtown lakes, rather than one large one, and a greater emphasis on environmentally friendly features such as wetlands. If additional money can be found, the lakes will be enhanced with fountains, whitewater courses and the like.

    • The levee protecting downtown will be raised 2 feet, a feature not guaranteed under the previous version of the plan. Drainage improvements will substitute for a proposed levee along the Elm Fork, near Texas Stadium. Development in the area will be geared to open space and recreation, including a soccer complex.

    Forest plan unchanged


    Two major chunks of the project will remain essentially unchanged: the Great Trinity Forest and measures to alleviate flooding in the southern sector.

    If, however, the devil is, as so often averred, in the details, there are some details worth pondering.

    Take for instance, the missing $110 million. That's how much the city is short of having the money to put the new plan on the ground.

    Mayor Laura Miller, who instigated the urban design study on which the new plan is based, is among those who downplay the gap's significance, portraying it as the inevitable result of trading a Ford for a Mercedes.

    $110 million shortfall


    Last month, Ms. Miller called it "amazing" that the shortfall is a mere $110 million.

    "The fact that we have created a much different project is why we have to go out and raise extra money," she said.

    However, the mayor has often suggested another reason: That the city had no real idea of how much the project would cost – especially the recreational components – when it asked voters in 1998 to approve $246 million in bonds.

    Ms. Miller loves to tell the story of how, soon after she was elected to the council, she asked city staff for the cost analysis used to formulate the bond request.

    At length, Ms. Miller says, staff members handed her "five pieces of paper" that included the promotional material used to sell the bonds to the public. They told her, she says, that they couldn't locate any in-depth analysis.

    Wednesday, she chose to strike a more positive tone, hailing the importance of the revised plan and waxing enthusiastic about the city's ability to snag the needed funds.

    Mr. Oakley seconded her optimism.

    "The great thing about [voting Monday to adopt] this vision plan is that it allows us to start raising private money now," he said. "We'll finally have something to go out and show people."

    Pending the day when the $110 million is in hand, the city staff has segregated the project's components into two categories: basic and expanded.

    Basic items are those the staff proposes to fund with money already on the table. That's the $246 million in Trinity bonds, plus money the city has requested – and in a few instances actually gotten – from the state and federal governments. The expanded list is the stuff that would only get built if the additional $110 million materializes.

    Basic items include the highway, virtually all flood-control measures, the Great Trinity Forest – including the nature center and an equestrian center – the Elm Fork improvements and two bare-bones downtown lakes.

    Lake features


    Expanded items include many of the goodies associated with the lakes: landscaping, promenades, boardwalks, wetlands and pumps to move the water and create features such as waterfalls and riffles. Also relegated to the expanded list are streets along the tops of the Oak Cliff and downtown levees, designed to spur development beside the floodway.

    At a Nov. 5 meeting, several council members complained that the lakes – which will be the project's most visible and arguably most popular recreational component – should get more money, with less going to other items.

    But the funding outline put before them Wednesday remained unchanged.

    When council members grumbled, Assistant City Manager Mary Suhm told them it doesn't really matter what's classified as basic at this point. She said that's because no money will actually be spent until the council votes to appropriate funds for individual contracts – in most instances, years from now, by which time she hopes to close the $110 million gap.

    'Hard choices'


    That's a refrain familiar to anyone who has followed the Trinity debate through the years: We've just got to start; we'll figure out where we're going later.

    The rationale for proceeding with the bond election in 1998 – based on a compendium of residents' wishes (some of which contradicted others), and with only a preliminary engineering analysis – was that until some serious money was on the table, no one would face the hard choices required to make the dream a reality.

    "Now we're trying to make the hard choices," said Craig Holcomb, former Mayor Ron Kirk's point man on the Trinity. That was in 2000, before the council adopted the Master Implementation Plan.

    That's the plan that Monday's vote is designed to supersede.

    E-mail vloe@dallasnews.com
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  29. #179
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    I find it ironic that this story starts on the front page of the Metro and then ends on the same page as the criminals and the obituaries.

  30. #180
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    lol...damn good point mikedsjr
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  31. #181
    High-Rise Member boozo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Winnetka Heights, Oak Cliff
    Posts
    623
    Philanthropist boosts contribution to Trinity bridge design
    12:41 PM CST on Monday, December 8, 2003

    By VICTORIA LOE HICKS / The Dallas Morning News


    Margaret McDermott, a mighty but reticent mainstay among Dallas philanthropists, made a rare appearance at City Hall Monday to be recognized by Mayor Laura Miller.

    The occasion was the announcement that Mrs. McDermott has added $6 million to her original gift of $2 million for the design of Trinity River bridges by Italian architect Santiago Calatrava.

    "She's very shy, she doesn't like all this attention," Ms. Miller said before hailing Mrs. McDermott for her "visionary philanthropy" and "legendary love of our city."

    Mrs. McDermott's first gift, made in 2001, was toward the design of a Calatrava bridge for the Wooodall Rodgers extension. The additional $6 million allows the city to hire Mr. Calatrava to design a second bridge, which will replace the worn-out span at Interstate 30.

    "I was more than hesitant to come here today," Mrs. McDermott told the City Council, quipping that "at 90-plus, it's pretty dumb to do photo ops and television experiences."

    She decided to come anyway, she said, in order to explain her interest in the Trinity River project and especially the bridges.

    Although some people may think that spending upwards of $90 million on a bridge is "exorbitant," she said, "I am aware of the number of people who will use it and who will be affected by it daily in tangible and intangible ways." For that reason, she said, "this may be the most significant thing I have been able to do for my city."

    Both design and construction money for the Woodall Rodgers bridge -$93 million - is in place and design is under way. For the I-30 bridge, the city still must raise the difference in construction funds between a plain highway bridge and a Calatrava creation.

    Eventually, the city also hopes to raise money for a third Calatrava bridge at I-35. Like the I-30 bridge, that one is scheduled for replacement by the Texas highway department. Mrs. McDermott, the widow of Texas Instruments founder Eugene McDermott, has quietly donated tens of millions of dollars to dozens of causes throughout the city, including universities as well as arts institutions.

    She said that although her husband was not, like her, a Dallas native, he associated the city with his great good fortune and believed passionately in giving back to it.

    She inherited that passion from him, she said. "It is his legacy, his mandate."

  32. #182
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    That is a wonderful gift.
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  33. #183
    Mid-Rise Member evdallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    459
    Originally posted by boozo

    Italian architect Santiago Calatrava.

    Santiago Calatrava was born in Valencia, Spain. His offices are in Zurich, Switzerland, not sure where they got their information. Maybe with all the Nasher publicity they were thinking of Renzo Piano.

  34. #184
    Mid-Rise Member evdallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    459
    I am glad there are people in Dallas who realize the potential of what we can do with the city.

  35. #185
    LH Copycat Columbus Civil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    LH
    Posts
    5,588
    Santiago Calatrava was born in Valencia, Spain. His offices are in Zurich, Switzerland, not sure where they got their information. Maybe with all the Nasher publicity they were thinking of Renzo Piano.
    Eurotrash is Eurotrash.
    Last edited by Columbus Civil; 09 December 2003 at 10:08 AM.

  36. #186
    crescentboi
    Guest
    columbus...i think that was one of the most inappropriate things you've said in a long time! that's just wrong.

  37. #187
    Mid-Rise Member MustangMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    LH Dallas
    Posts
    266
    Agreed

  38. #188
    is gone.
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    77023
    Posts
    5,254
    It took SIX MILLION DOLLARS to design them? Just to design them?! Oh come on! I am so sick of these "bigtime" architects soaking up money like they do, even though their peons have to do all the real work, interperting a bunch of scribbles made by a "great architect." And then add to the fact that the bridges envisioned leave something to be desired. For that much money in DESIGN costs, couldn't Calatrava do better?

    I guess that's what happens when you have a dog skeleton in your office...

  39. #189
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575

    IT'S ALIVE......ALIVE!!!

    City Council OKs new Trinity plan
    More environmentally friendly features touted
    01:35 PM CST on Tuesday, December 9, 2003
    By VICTORIA LOE HICKS / The Dallas Morning News
    http://www.dallasnews.com/localnews/...ity.8e62d.html

    Dallas City Council members proclaimed a fresh dawn for the Trinity River project Monday, adopting a new, more aesthetically and environmentally nuanced plan for the $1 billion-plus endeavor.

    "The message is that this council is going to get the dirt flying," declared Mayor Laura Miller, the driving force behind the revised plan. "Virtually every constituency group is saying, 'This is our plan,' and we're going to move forward together."

    The new plan replaces one overwhelmingly endorsed by the council in August 1999.

    On Monday, Ms. Miller and other council members congratulated a small group of private citizens for funding the new $600,000 urban design study and shepherding it along the steep and rocky road from conception to finished product.

    The new plan differs in crucial respects from the earlier one, among them that:

    • The toll road between the levees has been trimmed from eight lanes to six lanes north of Woodall Rodgers Freeway and four lanes south of it.

    • The entire road will be on the downtown side of the river, not split, with some lanes running along either bank, as the earlier plan recommended.

    • The downtown section of the highway will be depressed into the levee's surface, making it less obtrusive, and a large pedestrian deck will be built to span the barrier between downtown and the river.

    • There will be two midsizedowntown lakes, rather than one large one and a greater emphasis on environmentally friendly features such as wetlands.

    • If additional money can be found, the lakes will be enhanced with fountains, whitewater courses and the like.

    • The levee protecting downtown will be raised 2 feet, a feature not guaranteed under the previous version of the plan.

    • Drainage improvements will substitute for a proposed levee along the Elm Fork, near Texas Stadium. Development in the area will be geared to open space and recreation, including a new soccer complex.

    The new plan was created by the Cambridge, Mass., design firms Chan Krieger & Associates and Hargreaves Associates.

    It will cost about $110 million more, money the city hopes to raise from the federal and state governments, private foundations and individuals, and future bond elections.

    In 1998 – even before the plan created by Dallas firm Halff Associates was adopted – voters approved $246 million in bonds for the project. Of that, $118 million was for the highway and other transportation projects, $25 million was for flood control in southern Dallas, $31 million was for the downtown lakes, $42 million was to create a nature preserve in the Great Trinity Forest and $30 million was for the Elm Fork.

    Before adopting the Krieger-Hargreaves plan Monday, council members tacked on amendments stressing the importance of finding money for two elements: a promenade along the downtown lakes and pumps to move water through the lakes in sufficient volumes to create features such as riffles and fountains.

    Council member Sandy Greyson, who offered the moving-water amendment, acknowledged that the vote cannot create money that does not currently exist. But she said the gesture mattered, because it "told the staff that we put equal priority on this with the road and flood control," which in the view of Ms. Greyson and some other council members, have been treated preferentially from the project's inception.

    Assistant City Manager Jill Jordan said the staff is working to find every available dollar for every aspect of the project.

    Doing it the right way


    "The message is that the council wants it done right the first time," she said.

    Nine current council members were on the council in August 1999, and eight of them voted to adopt the previous Halff plan.

    "The Dallas City Council on Wednesday capped decades of wrangling over 'doing something' with the Trinity River, approving a master plan that would transform the meager waterway with lakes, trails and suspension bridges," The Dallas Morning News reported at that time.

    Ms. Miller alone among the current council members voted against the Halff plan, arguing that at the time of the vote, the council had not seen the plan, only a summary of it. The tally was 12 in favor, three against.

    The council was supposed to vote again on the Halff plan after receiving the document in December 1999. But though the council was briefed on it in January 2000, council minutes do not record any subsequent vote.

    Mayor Pro Tem John Loza, one of the eight current members who voted for the Halff plan, gave Ms. Miller credit Monday for refusing to let the council settle for it.

    'Excited about project'


    "Because of Ms. Miller's good questions, we are here today," he said. "People are excited about this project, but they're anxious. They want to see dirt flying."

    A statement in no danger of drawing a rebuttal.

    In 1999, Mayor Ron Kirk welcomed the adoption of the Halff plan with the declaration: "Folks, we got to get going on this. We have stopped, started, looked and dreamed about the Trinity River for 30 years."

    In other business Monday, the Dallas City Council approved a plan designed to improve taxicab service.

    The plan would slash the number of taxis citywide by 10 percent, prevent new companies from starting up and require drivers to accept credit cards.

    The plan also establishes a city taxi advisory panel and increases city taxi inspectors, in part because of customer complaints of poor service and fare gouging.

    Representatives of smaller taxi services criticized one provision that all but prevents drivers from joining another Dallas taxi company if they are fired or quit. Council members said the advisory panel will closely monitor such issues.


    Staff writer Dave Michaels contributed to this report.

    E-mail vloe@dallasnews.com
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  40. #190
    Low-Rise Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    198
    God bless civil engineering deals.

    I'm going to design a giant statue of my ass and sell it to the city for $10 milliion dollars a cheek. As long as there's a freeway running through the middle of it, it ought to pass and make me a millionaire.

  41. #191
    Evil Suburbanite
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bedford, TX
    Posts
    312

    Re: IT'S ALIVE......ALIVE!!!

    "The message is that the council wants it done right the first time," she said.
    Kind of hard to read that without laughing and giggling uncontrollably.

  42. #192
    LH Copycat Columbus Civil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    LH
    Posts
    5,588
    snooch, that idea might work here.
    Last edited by Columbus Civil; 09 December 2003 at 04:37 PM.

  43. #193
    Sea™ CTroyMathis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,259
    Just for note:

    Both design and construction money for the Woodall Rodgers bridge -$93 million - is in place and design is under way. For the I-30 bridge, the city still must raise the difference in construction funds between a plain highway bridge and a Calatrava creation.
    From the City Council Agenda on 08 Dec:
    4. Authorize (1) a professional services contract with Santiago Calatrava SA to provide engineering and design services to produce bridge layout and schematic design of the IH-30 signature bridge across the Trinity River in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000, (2) the receipt and deposit of privately donated funds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000, and (3) the establishment of appropriations in the amount of $3,000,000 in the IH-30 Bridge Donation Fund - $3,000,000 - Financing: Private Funds

  44. #194
    High-Rise Member dallastophoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    992
    Spanish Fly

    Dallas turns rape to romance with Calatrava bridges

    BY JIM SCHUTZE
    jimschutze@mindspring.com

    Instead of a linear treatment of the river, turning it into a green refuge at the heart of the city, we're going to stick a stinking freeway on top of it. And then we will try to pretty up the mess we've made by festooning it with suspension bridges.

    So the Dallas City Council has spoken, and we are not going to devote our money or our energy to any kind of natural treatment of the river that runs through us. Instead, according to the council's recent unanimous vote on the multibillion-dollar Trinity River project, we will build a new freeway next to the river and a couple of small fake lakes. But it will be OK, because we're going to put a Calatrava suspension bridge over it.

    To me, this is the same thinking that says you can take a girl straight off the farm, fill her purse with oil money, hang a Neiman Marcus sable on her shoulders, and you got yourself a duchess. I'm a snob. I think the Trinity River project is a farm girl in a fur coat.

    But here's the international news: Apparently Santiago Calatrava, the famed architect of bridges and buildings, has arrived at that key moment in his career when he will build anything for money. He's ready to do the big rollout. How long before he's in Home Depot?

    The proposed Calatrava bridge or bridges in Dallas will be, after all, suspension bridges over a freeway and a narrow drainage ditch. Their true nature, in architectural terms, will be as follies.

    An architectural folly, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, is "any costly structure considered to have shown folly in the builder." The mental state of folly is defined by the OED as "the quality or state of being foolish, want of good sense, weakness or derangement of mind."

    That about nails it.

    Let's not bore ourselves with a big dissertation on the purpose of suspension bridges. We all sort of get that bridges hung by cables overhead were invented to span deep or broad chasms or places where there was some other physical reason you couldn't build a bridge on piers. Modern concrete suspension bridges have a reason for being, in other words. They were invented by engineers, not flibbertigibbets.

    Calatrava, a 52-year-old Spaniard of aristocratic lineage, started designing bridges in 1984 and has been stretching the aesthetic and engineering envelopes ever since. His world renown is for wonderful bridges that loom like harps across the sky. So far those projects have also solved real needs and express at least as much mathematical and engineering genius as art.

    But come to Dallas.

    Here, the proposed Calatrava bridges will span mud flats between the flood-control levees or berms at either bank of the Trinity River where it flows through downtown. The first bridge, for whose design a huge private gift was recently announced, will have a main suspension span of about 800 feet, or three city blocks, in length, a third of the distance between the levees. It will cross an expanse where the more common, more practical, much cheaper solution would be a bridge of beams on piers. Stuck out in the middle of the flat yellow floodplain like a silk bow on a cow, the role of this suspension bridge will be not merely ornamental but deceitful.

    In fact, by lending his name to the Trinity River project, Calatrava demonstrates how architecture can serve as camouflage for exploitation, especially when it divorces itself from function and jumps into bed with politics. At the risk of sounding seriously overwrought, I can't resist pointing out that Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, started down his own personal path to hell the minute he decided the function of buildings was not shelter but "a serious way of giving expression in stone to the will of the National Socialist movement."

    And all right, OK, keep your shirt on: I realize going from the Trinity River project to the Nazis is a reach. I prefer to think of it as argumentative rather than absurd. The fact remains that the Trinity River project, as configured by the recent city council vote, is the perfect expression of the political will of old-guard Dallas, in which everything else is subverted--especially the democratic process--to 1950s-style cars-and-freeways real estate development. It's so them. I don't think it's us.

    For five years we have battled over this project, which was sold to voters initially in a 1998 bond election as the solution to flood-control issues and a chance to create a vast central park in a downtown woefully devoid of green. Not far along the way, it became obvious that this whole package was window dressing for a road project certain landholders had been seeking for decades. It is their conviction, expressed often and exuberantly in hearings, that "access is success"--a line from the Eisenhower era meaning prosperity flows from newer bigger better roads. Picture a family of maniacally grinning blond people in a turquoise '52 Buick Roadmaster with chrome-trimmed ventiports in the front fenders and a big toothy waterfall grille.

    What the road hustlers want is a new freeway to bring people into the worn-out warehouse district at the northwest ear of downtown. Along the way, various urban land-use experts have warned them that the freeway idea is worn-out and won't work for development. What would really enhance land values, they have argued, is proximity to a splendid urban park. The old guard listens to this advice, exchanges knowing glances, nods and whispers, "Hippies from Boston."

    In its recent vote, the Dallas City Council shifted the financial priorities within the project dramatically away from park-building toward road-building, making it all too obvious which comes first. Even though voters approved $246 million for a park in 1998, plans for the park now depend on the city's ability to raise $110 million in new money from private sources. Lots of luck. Who's going to chip in now for a park squeezed between a freeway and a drainage ditch full of partially treated sewage most of the year?

    All of this merely demonstrates that it's not about the park. The game is the road. And the Calatrava bridges are more than merely emblematic of the game: They are the political and cultural keystone holding it up. By sticking one or more faux suspension bridges on the floodplain, we convince ourselves that we have atoned for abusing the earth. It's not really rape if you give her jewelry. Calatrava is our jeweler.

    But enough about us and our problems. We are but a small detail in the international glory that is Santiago Calatrava. The real importance of the Calatrava project in Dallas is what it means for the rest of the world--that now anyone can have a Calatrava something-or-other.

    If Dallas can have faux suspension bridges across a drainage ditch, then why couldn't Wichita Falls have a much smaller Calatrava bridge across the fake 54-foot concrete waterfall on Interstate 44 (in which "water is circulated at 35,000 gallons a minute," according to one guidebook). I actually think at 35,000 gallons a minute the fake falls in Wichita Falls may be a more substantial water feature than the Trinity, especially in seasons when the upriver sewage-treatment plants are being stingy with their effluent.

    As these things go, the franchising of an artist's trademark tends to get broader, shallower and smaller with time. Often in a short time. It's like artists in Santa Fe: One year the guy's got landscape oils in a gallery. The next year he's still in the gallery but his landscapes are also available on the sides of limited-edition vans. Eventually you can get his stuff as charms on free key chains at the corner Exxon station. Sometimes that whole cycle can happen in less than five years.

    I think this is the good part. I would be proud to say we had played some modest role in helping bring Calatrava to the masses.

    I personally would like to be able to go to Calatrava.com and order a mini for my back yard. We have a small pond, which I dug, with a rubber liner and rocks around the edge. My wife has placed potted plants and some fish in it. It's very pretty. Typically what I would do in our marriage is this: I would surprise her on her birthday with a Calatrava suspension bridge for the pond, which I would assemble from the box the night before so I could unveil it in the morning. Put her in a blindfold and stuff. Then for the next few weeks things would be tense and sort of distant. Questions would be asked about cost and whether a credit card was involved and return policies and so on. I would get mad. OK, forget that idea.

    Instead, I believe I'll wait for the Calatrava sunglasses to come out. I happen to be at a point in the earlier part of my latter middle age when I am experiencing a certain reconfiguration of the hairline, which I believe is very distinguished. But I do think the Calatrava look in eyewear--I imagine a cool titanium construction with tiny ventiports and dramatically upswept grilles at both ends--might help me maintain the suave menace I crave. Can't wait, frankly. And what I put on my face: That's my own damn business.

    The nice thing about one's own errors in judgment or lapses of taste is that they really don't hurt anybody else. The damage associated with the Calatrava bridge scheme in Dallas will be enormous and enduring. Just when the city is on the verge of a whole new future--people moving back into the center, a flourishing of cafes, a generation that would rather ride a bike or get on a train than park a car, that would love a place to hike or canoe in the heart of the city--the old guard manages to leave one last corpse on the levee. And it's Santiago Calatrava who will stoop to apply the rouge.

  45. #195
    Administrator gc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    8,575
    ouch!
    “We shape our Cities, thereafter they shape us.”

  46. #196
    Supertall Skyscraper Member TexasStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mountain Creek
    Posts
    2,022
    Jim Schultz needs to lighten up.

    A city is a vast construct with, literally, millions of different tastes and opinions. The people who think the Trinity needs a road and the people who think the Trinity needs a Park have no choice but to compromise or the Trinity gets nothing at all.

    And if you have to have a bridge anyway, why not make it a really nice one?

  47. #197
    Sea™ CTroyMathis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,259
    I must depart and go look up that word, 'flibbertigibbet'. Heh.

  48. #198
    Mile-High Skyscraper Member rantanamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    6,283
    I hate writing like that. No alternative mentioned. Would he rather we just throw up plain jane ugly spans? What the bridges span will be a compromise, and who knows, may actually be nice some day. Afterall, there are no natural lakes in North Texas. It hasn't hurt White Rock or Bachman to be artificial. Won't hurt these lakes. Neither will beautiful spans. Patience man, patience.

  49. #199
    Mid-Rise Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Addison
    Posts
    444
    think his point is that the bridges will be pearls on a pig. And if we're doing signature bridges, couldn't we have had a couple of perople's signatures? Do we really need a few Calatravas? That's my beef with the thing.

    We could take some of that bridge money and actually build a park. A bridge without a real purpose. We might end up like those folks in AZ who bought the London Bridge thinking they were getting Tower Bridge and are now kind of a joke.

  50. #200
    Smile... :) mikedsjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,463
    Originally posted by TexasStar
    Jim Schultz needs to lighten up.

    A city is a vast construct with, literally, millions of different tastes and opinions. The people who think the Trinity needs a road and the people who think the Trinity needs a Park have no choice but to compromise or the Trinity gets nothing at all.

    And if you have to have a bridge anyway, why not make it a really nice one?
    I would rather have nothing than with a highway going through there. Maybe the Taliban can help us out on that front. But as we all know, all of these highways, including Loop 9, will happen. This isn't the Dallas agenda. Its the agenda of the NTCOG. Dallas has to bow down to NTCOG, not the people of Dallas.

    I'm not hip on an expansion bridge, but i can deal with it. Its just seems odd not having a large body of water, yet still placing an expansion bridge in. Yes, i know they are placing lakes in. They are not going to be the size of White Rock, i sure. My first and most important concern is that they have wetlands that are made available for wildlife away from that stupid highway. The people of Dallas forget how important nature is. Nature to them is a park built just for humans. That's as much and ininformed they are about nature. And having the wetlands with wildlife brings valuable interests and education to Dallas.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •