Sports in Austin

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by freerover

It'll be for general use for the people of Travis County so they can continue to enjoy the kind of events that come to the Erwin center which will stop coming if it's bulldozed and UT builds a small arena on campus.

I don't see UT wanting to give up the revenue generated by all of the shows hosted at the Erwin Center. I would guess that any new arena would still be large enough to keep hosting those events.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I don't see UT wanting to give up the revenue generated by all of the shows hosted at the Erwin Center. I would guess that any new arena would still be large enough to keep hosting those events.

The official plan right now is an arena near DKR (just south of the track stadium) that would seat about 15,000 for basketball and up to 13,550 for concerts with an end stage configuration. A center stage would not be possible. That is UT's preference. If the city of austin wants to pay for half of the arena then UT is willing to build something bigger but UT will not pay to build an arena that can function as an alternative to the Erwin Center because it would be more expensive and be much harder to put on campus. Their focus is doing whats best for the basketball program and that's an arena closer to campus that has more intimate seating.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by freerover

The official plan right now is an arena near DKR (just south of the track stadium) that would seat about 15,000 for basketball and up to 13,550 for concerts with an end stage configuration. A center stage would not be possible. That is UT's preference. If the city of austin wants to pay for half of the arena then UT is willing to build something bigger but UT will not pay to build an arena that can function as an alternative to the Erwin Center because it would be more expensive and be much harder to put on campus. Their focus is doing whats best for the basketball program and that's an arena closer to campus that has more intimate seating.

Yeah, every Texas basketball coach for years has been complaining about this. It's hurting the program for sure.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I was envisioning a big drum beating to keep time.

Make seating all general seating and hold water taxi boat races with a person in the back with a megaphone yelling "stroke, stroke". I'd line the shores to see that. Otherwise, I'm ok with battery power propulsion.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I was envisioning a big drum beating to keep time.

I think there's a joke here somewhere from me but I'm not finding it...

[freerover]

The report from the city staff on locations for the soccer stadium will be posted on Wednesday with a discussion to follow at the Thursday council meeting.


Also, the Austin Monitor is reported renewed interest from the county for some hotel money to help the Expo center. It looks like they are open to soliciting multiple bidders for a redevelopment project. I think you're likely to see a focus on building a big new arena and expo center.

Travis County officials appear ready to push for some of Austin’s growing pool of Hotel Occupancy Tax money to be used to pay for an ambitious expansion of the Travis County Exposition Center site, which is also where a group of local sports businesspeople want to build an open-air stadium and an arena.

The announcement earlier this week of the proposed East Austin District project to add large-capacity entertainment and sports facilities to the 300-acre site in Northeast Austin has county leaders saying the Expo Center redevelopment should share HOT funds with a proposed $600 million expansion of the Austin Convention Center downtown.

Travis County Commissioner Jeff Travillion, whose precinct includes the Expo Center site, told the Austin Monitor the tax dollars paid by tourists using Austin hotels could pay for new meeting and other facilities to support Rodeo Austin and would help jump-start private investment that would likely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

“If you use the HOT funds to expand the Expo Center and rodeo opportunities then you have the opportunity to improve the infrastructure in that area without any ad valorem taxes,” he said. “Things like attracting a concert venue and a big soccer or basketball team are acceptable uses of those funds, and that could then help attract more private capital.”

Travillion said talks are currently underway with city leaders in economic development and those involved in formulating the city’s annual budget about possibly utilizing HOT funds at the Expo Center site, which is managed and leased by the county on land owned by the city of Austin, with the lease in place for 17 more years.

Such a use would be an about-face from Mayor Steve Adler’s plan to use the downtown convention center expansion as the centerpiece of his “downtown puzzle” policy agenda, which would use a 2 percentage-point increase in the hotel tax to pay for help for the homeless and a variety of other civic improvements.

Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt said there is at least one other group putting together a development proposal for the Expo Center site. She said the best next step for city, county and Rodeo Austin officials will be setting up a process to open up the redevelopment to all interested groups to compete.

Eckhardt said a presentation this week to county commissioners based on a report from Hunden Strategic Partners on the feasibility of redeveloping the property will help frame that process, which she said is still in its very early stages.

“The conversations we’ve had with the city have been super productive but it’s too early to say what direction this takes,” she said. “The Expo Center and the convention center are two separate issues, and they’re only related by the toolbox for (tax) revenues because there is some overlap.”

When Adler unveiled his downtown puzzle plan this summer, he said it was unlikely that the county’s suggested uses for HOT funds would qualify under the state law that allowed the creation of the tax.

Travillion said paying for the Expo Center upgrades with HOT funds would likely only delay any convention center expansion rather than cancel it out.

“We could be able to provide resources and space to take some of the event pressure off of the downtown area and while the (downtown) construction is happening the Expo Center could be an alternative to the convention center,” he said. “I don’t think one project gets in the way of the other. You just have to sequence them properly.”

In September, City Council voted to have staff research the legal framework and procedural steps involved in the various pieces of the downtown puzzle proposal. A report with that information is due on Dec. 15.

The East Austin District proposal is the work of a group known as Austin Sports & Entertainment and enters into the fray of athletic facilities speculation brought about by the possible relocation to Austin of the Major League Soccer franchise based in Columbus, Ohio. That ownership group has its hopes on converting the Butler Park athletic fields into a stadium site by 2019, but AS&E head Sean Foley told the Austin Monitor that his group is having “ongoing conversations” with the MLS owners about possibly hosting the team at the Expo Center stadium.

Rob Golding, CEO of Rodeo Austin, which is the primary tenant of the Expo Center, said the use of HOT funds is one of multiple issues county and city leaders need to work through quickly for the AS&E project to become a reality.

“I think the idea of a bigger convention center is beginning to go away, and the voter will to use HOT money to eat up downtown property to make the convention center bigger is not really there,” he said. “We need to figure out what other development would happen at the Expo Center if we include a new arena, meeting and banquet facilities. I see uses that are broader like farmers markets, FFA and 4-H activities, and soccer fields and other facilities that could serve a lot of East Austin.”

[ClendonRoss]

Just received the following (infuriating) email from Ann Kitchen after I wrote to her as one of her constituents in support of the Butler Shores stadium location (and I live at Barton Springs and S. Lamar so it is truly in my neighborhood):

Dear Neighbors –

I’ve received many emails regarding the Major League Soccer stadium proposal and want to provide you all with an update on where we are in process and reiterate, while the idea of a soccer stadium is an exciting opportunity for Austin – I strongly assert it must be located in the right place.

There are a number of concerns I share with many of you regarding the initial suggestion for the Butler Shores location. That location is not the right place for many reasons. Extreme concentrated traffic impacts, challenging and limited access, stadium lighting and noise on the Barton Place condos as well as Zilker Park, surrounding neighborhood, and park land would add to an already overburdened area (given the impacts of ACL and other events for example).

The resolution passed in November directed the City Manager to identify city-owned sites and to include underutilized parkland for a Major League Soccer stadium and practice fields. The report back item is posted for this Thursday’s Council meeting as Item 92- http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=289851 Council is expected to discuss the item at work session on Tuesday, but unfortunately staff’s report will not be released until Wednesday.

This is no way to proceed on such a major council action that could involve the use of some of our City’s public parkland and particularly prime parkland along Lady Bird Lake. Any action must be thoroughly reviewed and must look for opportunities to increase access to parkland for our increasing population, not diminish access.

I will be advocating for the item to be removed from Council’s Thursday agenda at Tuesday’s work session. We will not have benefit of staff’s report in time for that discussion and a single day prior to Thursday’s meeting is simply not sufficient. If the item moves forward to Thursday, I will continue to argue for more time and exploration of opportunities to provide the public and Council the time that should and needs to be provided for such a major project.

To date the soccer interest, Precourt, is acting on its own – the city has not suggested or sanctioned or participated in any drawings of a stadium. Nor has city council approved the Butler Shores location or considered any location for that matter. The only action Council has taken is to direct the staff to create a list of all potential locations within the entire city – private land as well as public land.

You can count on me to oppose the Butler Shores location; to ensure that the public is involved in discussion of any location; and to properly vet any proposals.

Best Regards,

Ann Kitchen
District 5

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ClendonRoss

Just received the following (infuriating) email from Ann Kitchen after I wrote to her as one of her constituents in support of the Butler Shores stadium location (and I live at Barton Springs and S. Lamar so it is truly in my neighborhood):

Ann Kitchen cares about her constitutes south of 71. That's it.

There should ABSOLUTELY be a discussion on Thursday. No one is expecting them to vote on a location. That is the best way to get it on the public radar.

[abigdeal]

Good God almighty. So bad.

[Jdawgboy]

Looks like a blanket response so chances are she didn't bother to read it. I plan to send a fairly abrasive (yet polite) e-mail even though she probably won't read it, pointing to the fact that she has done nothing to address my concern regarding the intrusive manner of the new 2 story houses that went up feet away from the property line, yet she seems hell bent on blocking the soccer stadium location proposal. Her lack of support for things that would benefit the city as a whole is quite evident. She claims she represents neighborhood issues, but what has she actually done to increase affordable housing in our district? Or address the overabundance of SF-3 conversions within existing neighborhoods where developers are stuffing as many houses on a single lot as they can, bumping them right up to the property line, then selling them for up to half a million dollars causing property values in the area to rise. She doesn't seem to be doing much to address actual neighborhood concerns but instead uses the same old tired arguments to oppose opportunities for the city as a whole.

This is why I was a vocal proponent of the 8-3 city council structure from the very beginning and I plan to complain and push the city to look at adding city wide seats as the population grows, like Houston and Dallas. We need some at large council seats to counter the districts. I still feel that it was very unfair how the vote was set up.

I've actually become a fan of Tovo lately (as crazy as it sounds), she spearheaded the effort to bring MLS to Austin. I think in a way, she has started to realize the benefits of taking the entire city's needs rather than just her district alone because there have been other things that she has supported that I was surprised about.

[paul78701]

This is all preliminary, yet she's already saying no and not even bothering to gather more info before making a decision. She doesn't even care if the voiced concerns are addressable. She is being completely derelict in her duty as a public representative. Effing awful.

[jbssfelix]

She claims she represents neighborhood issues, but what has she actually done to increase affordable housing in our district? Or address the overabundance of SF-3 conversions within existing neighborhoods where developers are stuffing as many houses on a single lot as they can, bumping them right up to the property line, then selling them for up to half a million dollars causing property values in the area to rise.

A. You just answered your own question.
B. If duplexes/ADUs didn't go in on those lots, and instead single-family-homes went in on them, how much do you think they would sell for? Less than $500k? Ha.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Looks like a blanket response so chances are she didn't bother to read it. I plan to send a fairly abrasive (yet polite) e-mail even though she probably won't read it, pointing to the fact that she has done nothing to address my concern regarding the intrusive manner of the new 2 story houses that went up feet away from the property line, yet she seems hell bent on blocking the soccer stadium location proposal. Her lack of support for things that would benefit the city as a whole is quite evident. She claims she represents neighborhood issues, but what has she actually done to increase affordable housing in our district? Or address the overabundance of SF-3 conversions within existing neighborhoods where developers are stuffing as many houses on a single lot as they can, bumping them right up to the property line, then selling them for up to half a million dollars causing property values in the area to rise. She doesn't seem to be doing much to address actual neighborhood concerns but instead uses the same old tired arguments to oppose opportunities for the city as a whole.

This is why I was a vocal proponent of the 8-3 city council structure from the very beginning and I plan to complain and push the city to look at adding city wide seats as the population grows, like Houston and Dallas. We need some at large council seats to counter the districts. I still feel that it was very unfair how the vote was set up.

I've actually become a fan of Tovo lately (as crazy as it sounds), she spearheaded the effort to bring MLS to Austin. I think in a way, she has started to realize the benefits of taking the entire city's needs rather than just her district alone because there have been other things that she has supported that I was surprised about.

Yeah, I have been surprised at Tovo with some of the things I've read. Folks need to consider their districts, but not at the expense of all other districts. The city itself needs to be healthy, and without that, all districts suffer.

[eskimo33]

For what it is worth (and not surprising in the least bit), I got a very similar response from CM Pool's office. She does not support the use of public lands for private ventures, and was more interested in seeing the stadium built at the Expo Center. The Expo Center location is exactly what Precourt does not want.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by paul78701

This is all preliminary, yet she's already saying no and not even bothering to gather more info before making a decision. She doesn't even care if the voiced concerns are addressable. She is being completely derelict in her duty as a public representative. Effing awful.

Sounds like Ann Kitchen.

[Sigaven]

I live in KItchen's district as well - do you think a handwritten letter is more likely to be read than an email? Maybe I'll do all three - via post, via email, via telephone. I'd at least like my voice to be heard as well, even though her little squirrel brain won't change its mind.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

s the same old tired arguments to oppose opportunities for the city as a whole.

This is why I was a vocal proponent of the 8-3 city council structure from the very beginning and I plan to complain and push the city to look at adding city wide seats as the population grows, like Houston and Dallas. We need some at large council seats to counter the districts. I still feel that it was very unfair how the vote was set up.

I wholeheartedly agree. 8-2-1 would have been much better for the city. You have council members voting against things because they aren't 1 mile over in their district when their residents will use the same facilities anyway. I think it'll take a recession and a collapse of business industry confidence in the city government for such a big change to occur.

I can't believe no one seems to care that they didn't modify the term limit statutes. The way the system is now, there basically aren't any.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I've actually become a fan of Tovo lately (as crazy as it sounds), she spearheaded the effort to bring MLS to Austin. I think in a way, she has started to realize the benefits of taking the entire city's needs rather than just her district alone because there have been other things that she has supported that I was surprised about.

I know what you mean. I don't know if she has shifted or the entire council has shifted around her. Still, I don't think she should be able to run again and I would hope Chris Riley would run if she couldn't. He is a voice we really need and the entire Lyft/Uber leaving could have been avoided if he would have been re-elected to the council.

Originally Posted by Sigaven

I live in KItchen's district as well - do you think a handwritten letter is more likely to be read than an email? Maybe I'll do all three - via post, via email, via telephone. I'd at least like my voice to be heard as well, even though her little squirrel brain won't change its mind.

Go to the council meetings.

[freerover]

Council Work Session:

The city staff basically needs more time for a comprehensive report which makes sense since they have to analyze every park in the city. They'll offer a preliminary report this week but the MLS stadium won't come up in council on Thursday.

City Staff wants to bring the matter up in a February council meeting.

Cesar wanted to make everyone realize that a decision needs to be made at some point and we need to know what that date is. That's more of an issue for the Crew.


Kitchen made a statement against Butler Shores that people in the area really don't want it. People bought condos thinking they would have a view for the lake and now they won't.

Renteria thinks they should push the Crew to the Expo Center grounds because people won't vote for a stadium at Butler Shores.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

A. You just answered your own question.
B. If duplexes/ADUs didn't go in on those lots, and instead single-family-homes went in on them, how much do you think they would sell for? Less than $500k? Ha.

To answer your question yes I would expect had the developer kept with what was originally told to us they would be more in line with the single family rebuilds in the neighborhood which would be in the 300-400k range, not cheap but cheaper than 475-500k which is the range they are selling these nextdoor.

To put some background, the lot next door had an existing house. We were not opposed to the lot being split into 3 because we were told originally that there would be one house on each lot. The issue is how these developers are using loopholes to stretch what is technically acceptable according to current city code which would be corrected if they can pass CodeNext. There is something to be said about keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. I've been a proponent of increasing density in the urban core, however the way that these developers are coming in finding all sorts of loopholes to work around to push the limits of these new builds which literally loom over surrounding neighbors is leaving a bad taste with those of us who have been supporting adding more housing to the existing neighborhood. They don't bother to open dialog with surrounding neighbors, they don't care about the fabric of the neighborhood, they don't care about trying to build affordable housing.

This is off topic and I won't bring it up here again but I felt that I had to respond to your reply. My origional point in bringing this up was that I plan to include my complaint in the e-mail to Kitchen and use it as a counter argument to her staunch opposition to the soccer stadium location.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by freerover

Council Work Session:

The city staff basically needs more time for a comprehensive report which makes sense since they have to analyze every park in the city. They'll offer a preliminary report this week but the MLS stadium won't come up in council on Thursday.

City Staff wants to bring the matter up in a February council meeting.

Cesar wanted to make everyone realize that a decision needs to be made at some point and we need to know what that date is. That's more of an issue for the Crew.


Kitchen made a statement against Butler Shores that people in the area really don't want it. People bought condos thinking they would have a view for the lake and now they won't.

Renteria thinks they should push the Crew to the Expo Center grounds because people won't vote for a stadium at Butler Shores.

So, city council is going to bone this up by trying to force a team that does not play here to accept land they do not want while Kitchen pretends to care about her constituents in the Zilker area.