I did actually. Did you read this? https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...he-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/ The claims of economic benefits of a stadium are not an exact science by any stretch of the imagination. How much of the $30M in infrastructure costs are you planning on being paid for by PSV? How much by the taxpayers? I'm sure you will point to the hundreds of millions in potential benefit for the city and county as a way to simply stick it to the majority of Austinites that probably wont ever use the facility, but in addition to the $30M in infrastructure, the land is valued at almost $10M. Do you think Austin city counsel is ready to give $40M to an out of town owner, one that is currently being sued by the State of Ohio for accepting tax dollars and then trying to skip town, when there are now competing developers that, according to the report, are used to paying these types of infrastructure costs as part of their developments? Oh, and did you read footnote 8? You might want to take a closer look at that.
I am not planning for any of the cost allocations - I'll leave that to Austin and PSV. That's a nice article about a different sport in a different city, and yes I've seen it - StC people have shared it hundreds of times. I honestly don't get the fixation on an "out of town owner" - Texas regularly courts business owners from other states. There is not a negative stigma there. It's a business-friendly state. Footnote 8 - I don't think anybody will be surprised by potentially more remediation.
The fixation comes from two places. 1) Experience. AP, and HSG after Lamar passed, had no real interest in Columbus and it showed. Same issue for HSG in KC. When The Wiz was sold to local ownership they took off. AP isn't interested in being an owner, that's been proven. You would be so much better off supporting Epstein, growing your USL team and then getting in the next round of expansion. 2) Don Garber has said repeatedly how connected, local ownership is something they want. He probably is stressing that more after seeing AP's complete inability to connect on any level with the business leaders in Columbus that are negotiating his buy-out right now. As for the additional remediation, is that another cost to the taxpayers? On top of the $40M?
The city would need to address the remediation for any use, and I would expect myself and other taxpayers would be on the hook for them to make city land usable.
It looks like the team is finally happening. Good to see all of Austin working together to make it happen. It looks like the departments all like the proposal and the affordable housing will be a non issue with the proposal that was presented.
The land is going to be used to house the new Dougherty Arts Center. I believe Ann Kitchen proposed it when she tried to take the public parks off the table.
That’s what you got out of this? Man, I want some of you are smoking. Today the city gave council what they requested, a report about if a stadium would work on a plot of land. The answer was yes, a stadium would work there, and so would other things. Them PSV dumped a late afternoon Friday “proposal”. Basically, PSV wants Austin to pick up around 30m in infrastructure costs so they can spend 187m on a stadium. Of course, 30m is only the beginning for the city. Since PSV will be giving the city the stadium back, there will be no property tax. Ever. That could take the gift of 30m to around 100m depending on the length of the lease, which would cost PSV one dollar a year. And the best part? When the lease is up PSV can buy the stadium back for the unimproved price. What this means is say the lease is 20 years. If AP doesn’t make it work, he walks away, leaving Austin with an empty stadium he pays 1 dollar a year for. If it does go well, he just got a 100m gift from the city. No way in hell ACC approves this. No chance. I thought the news today would be some kind of local partnership. Glad I was wrong.
I don't think this is true for a number of reasons. Please provide a source for this that you relate as fact. Like a link to some authority or official report or action.
Butler Shores is being considered for the DAC, according to the city site http://www.austintexas.gov/DACproject
Thank you. So, that report does not address how they would place the DAC' at Butler Shores. There is additional room now at Butler Shores that is not used as a ball field. They could fit it in without losing the ball fields -- or they could take one of the four ball fields. Nothing is clear on that matter. What is clear is that moving the DAC to Butler Shores would not result in losing more than one ball field.
Hopefully, since they are so cherished. I don't see the relocation of that one ball field as one of the benefits of putting the DAC there. That would sure be a shame.
I also thought the stadium has a retro vibe with what looks like dark wood in front and a roofline like Esso Saarinen's Dulles terminal. PSV shouldn't expect an answer in June. Wait until after they've done the full traffic and parking study and council has heard from others interested in the McKalla site.
They probably won't look too hard to see if further remediation is required if McKalla becomes a stadium. They will or at least should look harder if it becomes a residential site. Is cost of living in Austin really lower than all the other cities in MLS, as PSV claims? I find it hard to believe Austin is cheaper than KC or Columbus. The survey of several thousand people that PSV uses is pure bunk. It's obviously not a random sample of Austinites, but apparently of soccer fans in Austin. MLS wishes 80+% of people were casual or avid fans of MLS. Something like that hurts the sales effort by requiring more scrutiny of other claims such as the community benefits and the parking situation.
Here is the rendering released by PSV http://soccerstadiumdigest.com/wp-c...tin-MLS-stadium-McKalla-Place-rendering-1.jpg My first thought was that the architects had been watching a lot of "Mad Men" episodes. My second thought was that they were picking up design ideas from the IBM campus a few block away that was designed in 1966 and opened in 1967. My third thought is that the Gensler architects might be referencing work they have already done in the Domain area: https://magazine.texasarchitects.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/9M8B1195-sm.jpg I was looking for a design that was recognizably Austin. I was wondering if they might pick up design cues from iconic buildings around town, the flavor of 6th Street, etc. But they didn't. I don't understand what they were going for (other than being obviously hip). The buildings are black accented by dark wood. ?! That'll be a heat sponge in 100 degree Texas days. And what's the deal with those 4 big black tanks in front? They must be 30 foot tall. What are they for? The design is very hip for 2018. But I wonder how it will "age"? Every building looks nice the day you open it. Will that design still look nice in 30 years? Or will it be like the clothes you wore in high school and go "What was I thinking!" Are they trying to reflect Austin in their design? Or are they trying to reflect The Domain? Maybe the second. Not really the first. That's just my reaction. I'm not aware that they've had the chance to explain the details of the design. And if approved, there is time for modification.
The tanks are a throw back to the site history. Either that, or they are going to include a brewery at the stadium so that they can make some money on days when there is no game.
My guess is that they're cisterns for rainwater collection. Now, if they'll add solar panels, then I'd say they're getting somewhere.
I like the brewery idea!! (But wouldn't they be made out of copper?) I thought about rainwater collection (which is a great idea). But couldn't they just bury them in the ground out of sight? Maybe the black roof is an array of solar panels (?). It looks like the structures are up on stilts to maximize the air flow through the stadium along with the open corners. There are good things about the design. If you go to PSV's proposal, pages 111 to 126, you can get more detail: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwe935rg1vw9qej/McKalla Proposal - Austin MLS 6-1-2018.pdf?dl=0 But my initial reaction to the look of it (probably the colors) is that it would be more at home in the Pacific northwest than in central Texas.
Can anyone in Austin tell us about the bonds on the McKalla property? Apparently there is something like $20 mil of debentures for Austin Water dept tied to their ownership of McKalla. They would have to be paid off before the property is transferred, which may be another reason for the cheap rental proposal from PSV (besides dodging property taxes). Who are the bondholders? Are they held by the public or is it an intra-governmental holding? If 3rd parties hold the bonds, they would probably have legal standing to challenge use of the property by anyone other than Austin Water.
I thought the same thing. BLACK?? Are you INSANE? Then I sat listening to music at 5000 Burnet Friday night and started counting the amount of black people were wearing. Outside. When it was still 95 degrees. And out of the dozens of groups I saw, I only saw two that wasn't wearing at least one black item. Not that we need more black in the league. I'm finding the highlights really annoying. I hate not being able to tell which team I'm watching at a glance, and at the moment it feels like I can only tell half the time because so damn many are wearing either black or white. May as well go back to black and white TVs. All that aside, with Houston orange, and Dallas red (and currently claiming the Texas flag with this season's uniforms), and there only being one green team in the league, I kinda like the idea of being green and black. Especially if they go half-and-half. Haven't had that in the league since the start. But please, no sawtooth borders.
The neighborhood association around McKalla had a meeting last night where Capella and representatives for another mystery developer present plans for mixed use and low income housing at McKalla. At first blush, their proposals include paying fair market value for the site and would generate lots of tax revenue for the city over the next 20 years. One said an appraisal had been done which vallued McKalla at $29 mil.
Leslie Pool, the member of Austin city council whose district includes McKalla has in effect come out against building the stadium there. She's suggesting the city issue a RFP so that developers can pitch alternatives. That will take months and will rule out the Crew playing in Austin in 2019.