Austinist: CWS Denied, Boardwalk Walks On

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:19:30 -0600

They ain't ever gonna build that boardwalk. I'm not a fan of it even if they do. In my opinion it's a bad use of resources, a bad call environmentally and probably wind up being a huge safely hazard.

Scooby

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:54:21 -0600

Solman, I'm talking about the section of the trail on the north side between Waller Creek and I-35, not East of I-35. It wasn't so bad the last time I was on that section (last spring), but for a while it seemed that there was quite a few violent crimes right around there. Maybe it's been a few years (I can't find any news stories ATM), but that area used to be scary- much scarier than anything on the Lakeshore, Pleasant Valley & Festival Beach areas. This boardwalk, if built, will be isolated and invisible from the roads, and will only have a few ways on and off of it. If present Park Police practices are followed, it will be rarely patrolled- that is, unless gay guys start using it as a cruising area (then it will be overrun with cops trying to run stings). It would be one thing if a cop could patrol it from their cruiser, but this will require some exercise. Sorry if I come off cynical, but past experience with projects like this have left me jaded.

SolMan

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:00:52 -0600

The east side of the trail is awesome. For one thing, it's not crowded which is great for bike riders like me. And, it's really very pretty. Shilli's right about the art around Holly. And, I always enjoy watching the kids play softball on the weekend mornings. I guess folks like Scooby are afraid to go over there. That's unfounded, though. You're much more likely to be hassled or feel threatened walking down Barton Springs Road or along Guadalupe. Maybe Scooby just enjoys the scenery and the isolation and is trying to scare folks off. Kinda like the bad guy in every Scooby Doo episode. Ah. . . the pieces are starting to fit together! It's a real buzz kill, though, to have to ride down Riverside and cross the freeway. I hope they build the boardwalk. It'll be interesting to see what the Trail Foundation's study comes back with.

Alan Sudo

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:51:43 -0600

Just as an FYI, the City issues variances, it doesn't need them. What you probably meant is that the City will need permits to build in a public waterway - things like enviromental impact studies and permission from the L.C.R.A., which controls the Colorado river. As the owners of the abutting land, CWS has no more or less right to the river than any other member of the public. And I think a Boardwalk will be cool.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:42:08 -0600

#9 Please look up the word "variance." kthnxbye

Scooby

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:07:58 -0600

#9, it would be up to the city council to make it legal.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:36:29 -0600

"How about, for developers of lakeside property where there is currently no trail, if the developer is willing to donate the land and pay for the trail, then they get to build fifty feet closer to the lake than they otherwise would?" I don't believe this is legal.

Scooby

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:22:51 -0600

I'd say the mile-plus-long boardwalk is either a pipe dream or a red herring (or both). Pipe Dream: It took people dying on the Lamar bridge to push the Pfluger bridge through, and that was for a lot more users and for less money. Would a 15-20 foot wide, mile-plus-long pedestrian causeway be worth the 8 figure price tag? Red Herring: Is there really much public demand for the trail to connect through? I know the existing trail opposite this section is not very heavily used, and exists mostly as a good place to get panhandled, mugged, raped, and/or killed. OTOH, if only there were a way to shorten the necessary length of the boardwalk... say, through horse-trading with property owners as the south shore land is redeveloped. Too bad the city doesn't have the opportunity to do something like that.

shilli

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:28:21 -0600

Myname, it will be interesting to see how much opposition there is to the boardwalk. I thought about putting something about it in the post, but figured I would wait until people actually come out against it. My understanding is that the city is going to have to get variances to build the boardwalk. Some of the property owners will almost certainly come out against it, possibly including CWS. We'll see if Save Town Lake comes out against it or not - I was never sure whether they were solely opposed to the added density from the CWS project or if they were also opposed to a trail extension.

guest

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:48:39 -0600

myname: How does it appease them? You've missed the point. They would rather be boiled in hot acid than see an evil landowner/developer make money. Welcome to Austin.

myname

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:38:42 -0600

What rights do the landowners have as far as water access to the lake? Does the city have to get their approval to build a boardwalk on the shores of their property? I would think a boardwalk that blocks access to canoes (and ruins the unobstructed view of the lake) could cause some landowners to protest this. Also, what is the required height for this given flooding, guardrails, and I assume lighting? How is this going to beautify the lake and please all the people concerned about man-made development destroying our lake?

heyzeus

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:03:50 -0600

I like that idea, Shilli. But I'm guessing that groups like Save Town Lake would then focus on the height issue.

shilli

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:42:48 -0600

I think that is basically right. I think there is still potential for on-land portions everywhere east of I-35 and on the portion just west of the Norwood Tract (where Joe's Crab Shack is now). The Norwood Tract is the only place where you need a boardwalk because of topography. The buildings west of Joe's Crab Shack are condos that aren't going anywhere, and the CWS land west of that will soon be condos that aren't going anywhere. City council has said that it is going to re-work the zoning here, which I think is what needs to get done (at least some council members said that their opposition was based on this being done piecemeal instead of as part of a uniform plan). Otherwise you have a diffuse benefit compared to a concentrated (perceived) harm, and the diffuse benefit is going to lose. If they can come up with some kind of a standard procedure, then maybe we can get on-land trail instead of boardwalk. How about, for developers of lakeside property where there is currently no trail, if the developer is willing to donate the land and pay for the trail, then they get to build fifty feet closer to the lake than they otherwise would?

mdahmus

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:24:48 -0600

For instance, Leffingwell's comment: "Stepping back to look at the big picture, the gap in the Lady Bird Lake trail is not just that piece of property. It's about 5,000 feet from where the trail ends to where it picks up again at I-35," Leffingwell said. "I believe just about all of that distance under any circumstance would have to be done with a boardwalk. I just don't see what that gets us. ... I think we're going to have to plan for a boardwalk, whether there it's 4,000 or 5,000 feet, it don't see a huge difference there." Based on what I've read in the study, they were not planning on 5000 feet of boardwalk; they were planning on boardwalk between a couple of on-land sections. The longer the boardwalk, the less feasible it is, even if you have the money. And of course, this ignores the fact that a trail in 150 feet of lakeside land is worth a lot more to the public than a 15-foot-wide boardwalk.

mdahmus

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:22:08 -0600

Last I heard, boardwalk estimate was about $1500 per linear foot. This supposedly means that CWS' parkland dedication fees would basically pay for their portion of the boardwalk ($1.7 million). The problem is that this section was viewed as one of the places where an on-land trail would be feasible. I don't know where else it could be on-land; there's some spots with no buildings but difficult topography; and nobody else with buildings close to the lake is going to want to negotiate given that the ANC-prescribed negotiating position is "you get nothing and like it, but feel free to give us some land". I doubt very much whether an all-boardwalk solution is feasible, for a variety of reasons (not just financial), but the Save Town Lake people just pissed away chances at whatever portions were feasible as on-land.